TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 695
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was Rs. 19,23,686/- (Basic), Rs. 38,474/-(H.E.Cess), Rs. 19,236/-(S.H.E. Cess). The mandatory limit for filing appeal by the department before the High Court as existing vide Circular issued by Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, New Delhi being being F.No.390/Misc./116/2017-JC dated 11.07.2018 was Rs. 50.00 Lakhs. It appears that this fact was not brought before the Hon'ble High Court by the Counsels, who appeared on behalf of the department. Either they were not apprised by the department (the appellant before the Hon'ble High Court), about the Circulars, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs from time to time, for reduction in litigation before the Tribunal, High Courts and Supreme Court, where the limits have been enhanced from time to time and in the present case the enhanced limit was Rs. 50.00 Lakhs for preferring an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court and the present case being within Rs. 50.00 Lakhs, did not qualify for preferring the appeal against the Tribunal's order before the Hon'ble High Court or they chose not to bring these facts before the Hon'ble High Court. Since the respondent assessees were not represented before the High Court, oth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s.Industrial Associates. He stated that it was apparent from the invoices that the supplier (M/s.Industrial Associates) had purchased the goods from various manufacturers/suppliers. Hence, even if the allegation made in the show cause notice that M/s.Industrial Associates had no infrastructure were to be considered, it would make no difference to the matter in hand. He further submitted that the appellant had duly discharged duty on the goods received and used the same in the manufacture of their final product. He also submitted that the receipt of goods had been recorded by the appellant in their statutory records, which were also submitted before the adjudicating authority. 6. The learned Counsel also submits that in all the above instances the goods were duly recorded in their statutory books and were duly consumed in production. That their financial ledger for the period shows the transaction duly recorded. The payment was made through regular banking channels and nothing discriminating has been found. That nothing contrary has been found from their unit and the third party statements and records i.e. transporter cannot be relied upon. He relied upon the decision of Tribunal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tement is apparently contradictory. Further, such statement having not being subjected to examination by the learned adjudicating authority or cross-examination by the defence, cannot have any evidentiary value. Reliance is placed on the provisions of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. M/s.Gontermman Peipers (India) Ltd. Vs. CCE-Kol-VIII (Order No.77772 to 77773/2017 dated 08.11.2017) is relied upon wherein such issue has been elaborately dealt with. Accordingly, the statement of Shri Subhas Biswas, labour of M/s.Industrial Associates is not of any evidentiary value. (Page 26-27 of the Paperbook). (b) Statement dated 17.12.2009 of Shri Subhas Dhandhania, Transporter Shri Dhandhania inter alia, stated that he did not transport the goods from the factory of M/s.Industrial Associates to their customers. His statement is not specific in as much as the vehicle numbers as mentioned in the invoices for supply of materials to the appellant by M/s. Industrial Associates were transported in the vehicles provided by Shri Dhandhania or not. There is no such specific averment from Shri Dhandhania in his statement nor the department pointed out such infirmities in the matter of tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtation of Goods" from the factory of M/s.Industrial Associates to the factory of the appellant, it is submitted that 43 consignments were involved on the basis of which the appellant had received the materials from M/s.Industrial Associates under equal number of invoices. In the said invoices, the vehicle numbers were indicated. Enquiries made by the department stated to have revealed that in respect of 4 vehicles and as per the reports from the Regional Transport Authority, the 4 (Nos.) of vehicles were not capable for transporting the goods. In respect of remaining 39 invoices and same number of vehicles, there was no dispute about receipt of the same in their factory. The submissions of the appellant in para XVI of 'Grounds of Appeal' (page 19-20 of Paperbook) is referred to. In respect of 4 vehicles, it was submitted by the appellant that there was every possibility for mistake in writing the registration number of the vehicles in such invoices. The submission of the appellant had been that since there were outstanding evidences in regard to supply and receipt of the materials by the appellant in their factory, mere discrepancy in recording the vehicle's registration number ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the adjudicating authority. 9. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 10. I find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of TMT bars and MS Billet in their factory at Mahisrekah, Howrah. They have been procuring the inputs from one M/s.Industrial Associates, which is a registered dealer. Such procurement was on the basis of invoices issued by the said dealer, wherein the particulars were reflected. On the basis of the same, the appellant assessee availed Cenvat credit paid on the said inputs as shown in the invoices. 11. On perusal of records I note that the inputs received by the appellants were duly entered in their RG-23A Part-I for the period from August, 2008 to January, 2009 and such records were subject to scrutiny by their jurisdictional Central Excise Officers and the credits were being availed with the knowledge of the Revenue and by reflecting the inputs in the records. In such a scenario, it is a difficult proposition to come to a finding that all the inputs received by the appellants, which have been utilized in the manufacture of their final product, were not actually received by the appellants. I also note that the appellant's Director Shri N.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... knowing his dealer. 14. Revenue's sole realization is on the statement of representative of M/s.Industrial Associates. However, it is seen that the employees of the said input manufacturer have stated before the investigating authority that they were engaged into cutting of TMT rods into pieces in their factory of M/s.Industrial Associates during the period in question. Such cutting of TMT rods constitutes of iron and steel, which is the inputs required by the appellants. This fact has not been disputed by the Revenue and reliance is placed only on the statement of the Director and employees laying down that cenvatable inputs were not transported by them. On the other hand, the assessee has brought on record the transaction ledger/voucher showing payments to the concerned drivers. The bank statement stands produced showing the payment to M/s.lIndustrial Associates by Account Payee Cheques. There is no allegation that such cheques were encashed and subsequently refunded to the appellant assessee. 15. Reliance is placed on the decision of the (a) Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Commr. of C.Ex., East Singhbhum vs. Tata Motors Ltd. [2013 (294) E.L.T. 394 (Jhar.)] wherein....