Decided on January 19,2015



P.S. Pruthi, J. - (1.)THIS appeal is directed against the Order -in -Appeal in which the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand of duty confirmed by the adjudicating authority.
(2.)THE facts of the case are that respondents availed cenvat credit on the basis of invoices issued by the dealer. The vehicles No. mentioned in the invoice were found to be not transported vehicles such as motor cycle, scooter, moped, etc. and in some cases, registration of the vehicles were fake as these were not issued jurisdictional transport authority. The allegation was that the dealers never supplied the material to the respondent. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, however, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Order -in -Original on the basis that the appellants have made payment for the inputs received from the dealer through accounts payee cheque and used the inputs in the manufacture of the final products.
Similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Adhunik Steels Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh vide Final Order No. 732 -762/2009 -SM (Br.) dated 14.7.2009 The Tribunal in para 4 and 5 held as under: - -

"4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the commissioner (Appeals) on identical issue in earlier orders set aside the penalties on the basis of Newspaper reports of Tribunal and The Times of India wherein it has been reported that 500 vehicles are running in Punjab State on fake registration. In the present cases, the Commissioner (Appeal) changed his mind on the ground that the same practice is still prevailing as the appellants have not taken any remedial action to amend the said mistake. In my view, penalty cannot be set aside/upheld on the basis of News -paper report. It is seen that the Commissioner (Appeal) have not examined the evidences placed by the appellants. The Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Aarti Steels Ltd. & Ors. (Supra), after considering the decision in the case of Rajeev Alloys Ltd. (Supra), held as under: - -

(3.)THE Revenue relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Rajeev Alloys Ltd. v. CCE vide Final Order dated 3.9.2008 in Appeal No. 2434/2006 Ltd. [reported in 2008 (89) RLT 227 (CESTAT -Del.)] The contention of the Revenue is that once it has been established that the vehicle numbers mentioned in the invoices are not of trucks or the transporter has denied the transportation of goods or the dealer has no godown than the burden is on the assessee who availed the credit to show by producing evidence that the duty paid inputs were actually received in the factory of production and used in the manufacture of dutiable goods. In these cases, as the Revenue by producing evidence of transporter and enquiries from transport office established that the vehicle numbers mentioned in the invoices are not of trucks or the transportation of goods is denied, therefore, the credit was rightly denied. In other cases revenue during investigation found that the dealers who issued the invoices had not received the inputs.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.