Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Moonlight Alloys Pvt. Ltd vs Cce (Appeals) on 17 November, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066
BENCH-SM
COURT III
Excise Appeal No.E/52574/2016-EX [SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-BHO-EXCUS-002-APP-064-16-17 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Raipur]
For approval and signature:
HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s.Moonlight Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE (Appeals) Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri.J.M.Sharma, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Shri.R.K.Mishra, A.R. Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing/Decision: 17/11/2016 FINAL ORDER NO. _55190/2016____ PER: S.K. MOHANTY
In this case, cenvat credit on the inputs has been denied by the Department on the ground that the vehicle used for carrying the inputs does not have such carrying capacity, and thus, the inputs have not been received by the appellant.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Duty paid nature of inputs, their receipt and utilization in the factory of the appellant is not under dispute. The cenvat credit has been denied on the sole ground that the vehicle used for transportation of goods from the suppliers factory to the appellant premises does not have the carrying capacity of carrying such goods.
4. I find that the supplier unit is situated adjacent to the factory of the appellant. Thus, in absence of any specific allegation that the goods have not been transported by the supplier, it can be concluded that the goods were supplied by the supplier on piecemeal basis to the appellant by using the same vehicle. Further, no statements of the transporter or any other person have been recorded by the Department to arrive at the conclusion that the goods were not supplied by the supplier to the appellant and on the basis of bogus invoices, the credit was availed. In absence of any plausible evidence in this record adduced by the Department, I am not in a position to accept the plea made by the Revenue for confirmation of the cenvat credit demand. I also find that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sharad Electronics vs. CCE, Delhi-IV reported in 2015 (328) ELT 560 (Tri. Del.), in an identical set of facts, has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
5. In view of above, I do not find any merits in the impugned order and allow the appeal in favour of the appellant with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
[Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court] (S.K. MOHANTY) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Anita 0 2