TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 11
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anufacturing and dealer's premises which were not accounted for; that the finished goods were also removed without payment of duty. The appellant herein is one of the suppliers of the said Cenvatable inputs on which M/s Nisha Industries had availed Cenvat Credit allegedly without actual receipt of goods. A show cause notice was issued to M/s Nisha Industries along with other noticees including the present appellant wherein it was alleged: • that the appellant had supplied goods to M/s Nisha Industries vide invoices no. 68 and 90; that only invoices were provided to M/s. Nisha and the goods were not accompanying the said invoices; • that in respect of invoice no. 68, the vehicle is a loading rickshaw & is therefore ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d opted for the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 and accordingly, their appeal has been dismissed as withdrawn. 2. Shri Rohit Lalwani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant had supplied the goods to M/s Nisha Industries under the cover of their following invoices: Sno. Invoice No. & Date Amount of duty involved 1. 68/17.07.2008 5,14,037/- 2. 90/20.08.2008 1,88,613/- 3. 97/10.09.2008 2,70,634/- Total 9,73,284/- He submits that the appellant had received the payment of goods supplied under the above invoices from M/s Nisha Industries. He submits that the department's case is based only on the statement without corroborativ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, the correct vehicle no. is GJ8U 1999 and not GJ 18U 1999. Therefore, credit cannot be denied only on the ground of the RTO report. He submits that it has not been proved by the department that the goods have not been received by M/s Nisha Industries and there was no evidence that the goods were not supplied. The quantity received under the invoice was duly accounted for in the Excise record by the consignee. 2.3 As regard the invoice no. 97 dated 10.09.2008, he submits that due to oversight the quantity of goods received and CENVAT credit was not found entered in Excise records. However, the credit was duly accounted in RG-23 Part II. Therefore, it would be concluded that the goods were not delivered with invoice. He submits that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty imposed upon M/s Dolphin Metal (1) Ltd of Rs. 12,94,547/- under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 by the adjudicating authority vide the impugned order. I shall examine the allegation with regard to fraudulent availment of Cenvat credit which is based on documentary evidences & corroborated by the statements as under: 9. In respect of invoice no.68 and invoice no.90 of M/s Dolphin Metal (1) Ltd issued in favour of M/s. Nisha Industries, I find that evidence in the form of statements of transporter are very clear wherein transportation of goods has been denied. The appellant states that with regards to invoice No. 68 of the appellant, there has been error in writing the vehicle no. in the purchase invoice and the goods....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or quality of goods and they have not raised any credit note to the said appellant to that effect and the said payment is still outstanding. I find that the contention of the appellant does not corroborate with the evidence on record. Thus based on the evidences / documents/ statements of the Proprietor of M/s. Nisha Industries (Manufacturing as well as Dealer unit) and statements dated 10.11.2009, 01.04.2010 and 19.04.2010 of Shri Deepak A. Bhagat, Director of the appellant, it is amply clear that the appellant issued invoices without corresponding supply of inputs to M/s. Nisha Industries (Manufacturing as well as Dealer unit) to enable them to fraudulently avail the Cenvat credit. I find that the Cenvat credit has been taken by M/s. Nish....