TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 640
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d order wherein cenvat credit has been denied to the main appellant namely, M/s. Nirmal Inductomelts Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, penalty is imposed on both the appellants. 2. The facts of the case are as under: "2.1 Brief facts of the case are that acting upon an intelligence that some of the registered dealers of excisable goods were passing cenvat credit to manufacturers of MS Ingots either directly or through second stage dealer on the basis of invoices of non-existent manufacturers, an investigation was taken up by the regional unit of DGCEI, Jamshedpur. Searches at the premises of four manufacturers, 11 first stage dealers and 15 second stage dealers were conducted. Further enquires were also conducted by various Central Excise Commissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice was issued in the matter, proposing therein recovery of wrongly availed cenvat credit along with interest and imposition of equal penalty to the appellant. Imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 upon the 6 firms was also proposed. The adjudicating authority after following the due process vide the impugned order confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed penalty equal to the amount of cenvat credit on the appellant and also imposed penalty upon the other firms. " 3. The said order was challenged by the appellants before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who, upheld the order of the adjudicating authority, aggrieved for the said order, appellants are before us. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....puts have been used in manufacture of the final product which has been cleared on payment of duty. No statement of any transporter has been recorded to allege that non receipt of the goods. In that circumstances, cenvat credit cannot be denied. 5. On the other hand, authorized representative submitted that the 7 show cause notices were issued but only one appellant has come forward. The manufacturers who were shown as manufacturer of the inputs have not paid duty, in that circumstances, cenvat credit is not available to the appellant. On the basis of the invoices issued by the second stage dealer. In that circumstance, cenvat credit cannot be allowed. 6. Heard the parties considered submissions. 7. We find that in this case, only issue h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ind out whether the Appellant No. 1 has received inputs or not? The Appellant No. 1 is entitled to take cenvat credit on the basis of the invoices issued by the second stage dealer along with inputs and all the requirements of the invoices has been fulfilled in terms of Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which were found to be correct in the invoices issued by the second stage dealer and the Appellant No. 1 has made payment through account payee cheque. In that circumstances, it cannot be said that in the absence of any supporting evidence, that Appellant No. 1 has not received the goods in the factory premises. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....invoices of excisable items, unless factually it is established to the contrary, it will be presumed that when payments have been made in respect of those inputs on the basis of invoices, the buyer is entitled to assume that the excise duty has been/will be paid by the supplier on the excisable inputs. The buyer will be therefore entitled to claim modvat credit on the said assumption. It would be most unreasonable and unrealistic to expect the buyer of such inputs to go and verify the accounts of the supplier or to find out from the department of Central Excise whether actually duty has been paid on the inputs by the supplier. No business can be carried out like this, and the law does not expect the impossible." 8. The judgment of the Di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oborative evidence to show that the appellant have not received the goods, it cannot be alleged against the appellant that they have received the invoices and not the goods merely on the ground that there was no storage facility specifically when the landlord made a statement that the godown was let out to the dealer. In the case of M/s. Dhawan Steel Industries (supra), this Tribunal has examined the issue wherein M/s. SK Garg & Sons was the dealer who supplied the goods to M/s. Dhawan Steel Industries and case has been booked against M/s. Dhawan Steel Industries that they have not received the goods from M/s. SK. Garg & Sons. In that circumstances, cenvat credit was sought to be denied to M/s. Dhawan Steel Industries but this Tribunal afte....