TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 681
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere initiated against the present appellant to recover the Cenvat Credit of Rs.81,66,865/- on the ground that the Cenvat availed in respect the consignments of MS Round, TMT Cutting, end cutting etc. were not physically received by the appellant. Show Cause Notice No. 1/Commr./BOL/14 dated 06.01.2014 was issued, by invoking the extended period provisions. The Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant company and the Director Ghanshyam Prasad [the second appellant herein] and the partner of the vendor. The appellants refuted the allegations contained in the Show Cause Notice and contested the same both on merits and on account of limitation. After due process, the Adjudicating authority went on to confirm the demand along with interest and imposed penalties on the appellants. Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant makes the following submissions: 2.1 The entire proceedings have been taken up without any proper verification and investigation and hence the demand itself is purely on assumptions basis. The entire investigation has been taken up on the ground that the vendor wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Vendor for which the payments have been made by the appellant through normal banking channel. Copies of the Ledger in respect of the Vendor Shree Ganesh Forging have been submitted to the Adjudicating authority to show the details of the transactions reflected in the books of accounts of the appellant, including the payment details through the banking channels. The Dept. has not brought in any corroborative evidence to the effect that the amounts so being paid through banking channels have flown back to the appellant by way of any cash transactions. No searches were conducted nor have any private records been recovered towards cash transactions / receipts from the Vendor, if the Revenue wants to rebut the banking transactions. Though the appellant's submissions on these grounds are very much recorded in the Order in Original, the Adjudicating has failed to address the same and has not given any reason as to why such documentary evidence is not considered by him. 2.4 In respect of the inward transportation of goods, after paying the freight to the owners of the vehicles, the appellant company has also paid the Service Tax on Reverse Charge Basis and shown the same in the ER 1 and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssion/ misstatement etc. must be established by the Department, and it cannot be based on presumption". 2.8 In view of the above submissions, the Ld. Counsel prays that impugned order may be set aside the appeal may be allowed both on merits and on account of time bar. 3. The learned AR representing the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Adjudicating authority. He submits that only on account of the detailed investigation taken up by the Dept. at the end of the Vendor Shri Ganesh Forging Company and the present appellants, they could find that the in many cases, the vehicles in which the appellant claims to have received the goods, are not capable of transporting such goods. In the recorded statements the vehicle owners have denied receipt of the freight payments or engaging the drivers whose signatures have been shown to them. These corroborative evidence prove that there was no actual movement of goods, but the entire transaction was on paper only. Accordingly, he justifies the confirmed demand and prays that the appeals may be dismissed. 4. Heard both the sides and perused the appeal papers submissions made by both the sides. 5. We find that out of 160 transactions betwe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shed goods. The taking of Cenvat Credit and quantity manufactured, the value of clearance, the Excise Duty paid on etc are being shown by the appellant in their ER 1 Returns, which also have been subjected to periodical audit by the Dept. 8. Another point to be considered is the fact that the appellant has received the Invoices from the Vendor showing the details of their Central Excise Reregistration number, details of the goods, Assessable Value, Excise Duty, VAT paid. Therefore, for all practical purposes the jurisdictional authorities have accepted the Returns filed by Vendor and have also taken the Excise Duty paid at that end. Therefore, we fail to understand as to which sane assessee would pay the entire Invoice value along with the Excise Duty and VAT thereon to take the CENVAT Credit of Excise Duty without having received the materials. They are fully accountable for the inputs received to show that the same has been used for manufacture of the finished goods. There is nothing to indicate that any verification to this effect was taken up by the Revenue, before raising the demand on the appellant. If the Dept alleges that the appellants have not received the inputs in ques....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... purchase transaction of 5759.70 MT on payment through banking channel to the extent of Rs.14.91 crores cannot be simply brushed aside. Similarly, the appellant has accounted for finished goods of 4477.73 MT during the period under consideration. All the facts are part of the statutory Returns like RG 23 A Part I, Part II and ER 1. This factual evidence on record cannot be ignored by clinging on to the 12 statements in respect 32 invoices and Vahan Dept's remarks in respect of 35 invoices. Therefore, we take the view that while the appellant has produced sufficient number of evidence from their side in their defence, the Revenue not only failed to properly investigate the issue, but also did not consider the factual evidence before confirming the demand. 20. From the SCN, it is seen that the Vendor, Shree Ganesh Forging Company has been made a co-noticee, seeking to know as to why penalty under Rule 26 of CER 2002 should not be imposed on them. Admittedly, the entire proceedings have been taken up on the ground that the Vendor has misstated the description of goods and has carried out only paper transaction. There is nothing to indicate from the SCN that the Vendor had not accoun....