TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1212
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de under 34 different invoices. On the ground that the appellant has not received the goods in question, but has only received paper invoices from the supplier STPL, a Show Cause Notice was issued demanding Rs.10,38,428/-. In the same Show Cause Notice, it was also alleged that there was a shortage of 3.066 MT of MS-ingots and 11.396 MT of Steel ingots when stock verification was conducted by the Revenue officials. On this shortage, the Excise Duty of Rs.59,260/- was demanded. The appellant submitted their detailed reply stating that they have received all the goods in question and submitted the details of transporter and the freight charges paid by them for movement of such goods. However, the lower authorities have confirmed the demand of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....transportation have been duly paid for the freight charged by them. He submits that all these factual details prove that the goods were actually received by the appellant in their factory and the same were put to use in their manufacturing operation. 3. The Learned Counsel also places reliance on the case law of CCE Kanpur v. Juhi Awas Ltd-2013-296 ELT 533 Tri-Delhi and the case law of Guantanam Pipers Ltd v. CCE Kolkata - Appeal No. E-25 by 2010 and E-26 by 2010. Final Order No.FO/7772-7773 /2017 dated 8-112017. In these cases it has been held that if any investigation is taken up against the supplier of the goods, the same cannot stand in the way of granting the CENVAT Credit at the end of the buyer who shows the details of accounting ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Commissioner (Appeals) or before this Tribunal. On these grounds, he justifies the confirmed demand. 6. Heard both sides, perused the appeal papers and the documentary evidence placed before me. 7. I find that in view of the discovery of alleged evasion by STPL, the factory of the present appellant was also visited by the officials. The officials visited the factory of the appellant on 26.07.2013 and found that there was a shortage of 3.066 mt of MS ingots and 11.396 mt of steel ingots at the factory premises of the appellant. This verification was duly signed by the authority signatory of the appellant and the Central Excise Officer. After this, the appellant has paid Rs. 59,260/- on 26.07.2013. From the records, it is seen that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase and accounting of the goods in their books of accounts. On the other hand, the entire demand from the Revenue's side solely based on the purported recovery of some evidence at the end of STPL, for which no proper corroboration has been brought in by the Revenue in the present proceedings. I also find that even as the reliance is placed on the purported documents recovered from STPL, they have not been made co-noticee in the present proceedings, which is erroneous. 10. The Tribunal in the case of CCE KANPUR Vs JUHI ALLOYS LTD. - 2013 (296) ELT 533 (Tri.-Del), dealing on a similar issue, has held as under: "3. Certain inquiries were conducted at the end of M/s. M.K. Steel and it was found that they were showing procurement of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....P Trade Tax department. This fact is sufficient to prove the physical entries of the inputs in the assesses premises. Further, the ledger account and RG 23A records maintained by the assessee also proves the receipt of the goods. Further, the payment of the said inputs stand made by the recipient through cheque. 8. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx As such, I fully agree with the finding of the appellate authority that denial of credit to the respondent manufacturing unit on the ground that first stage dealer has fraudulently received the goods is neither proper nor justified. Reliance by the appellate authority on various Tribunal's decision is proper. 9. In view of the above discussion, I reject all the appeals filed by the Revenue". 11....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty of Rs.59,260/- imposed on them under OIO, which has not been contested by the them by way of any cohesive arguments against the confirmation. (c) The penalty of Rs.1,00,000 imposed on the Director Sandip Agarwal, being uncontested, becomes recoverable dues for the Revenue. 15. The appellant would be eligible consequential relief, if any, as per law. (Pronounced in the open court on 19.08.2026) ============= Document 1 AXINVOICECUM EXCISEINVOICE 17. NABIN CHANDRA DAS ROAD,, KOLKATA - 700 090 Original for Bilayer) ARJAN DASS & SONS (P) LTD -Nov-2010 PIEXE/0064/10.11 23 Nov-2010 May-2010 at 09:55 BASIC EXCISE DUTY@ 10% 8 ※문 Stock Account of 'Inputs for use in or in relation ....