Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.39 seconds)M/S Banswara Textile Mills Ltd vs Cce, Jaipur-Ii on 24 August, 2010
102. Also, in another case of Santogen Textile Mill Ltd. vs CCE,
Mumbai-II 2007 (214) E.L.T. 386 (Tri. - Mumbai) before the
CESTAT, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai, the appellants had
submitted that "in all these cases raw material was received in
their factory and was used in the manufacture of exported
goods under various shipping bills. In support thereof, he refers
to the re-warehousing certificates duly signed by the
jurisdictional Central Excise officers, D-3 intimation filed with the
department, documents regarding removal of yarn and receipt
of grey fabrics from the job worker which were countersigned by
the Central Excise Officers and show that the goods were duly
received and consumed within the factory of production". The
appellant in the said case had further submitted (similar to
IndianSmelting's submissions in the instant case) that "mere
non entry in the octroi record does not establish that the goods
were not transported". The CESTAT had, however, while
disposing off the appeal, observed that" the goods were not
transported to the premises of 100% EOU in view of the
statements of suppliers/transporters, delivery orders and the
octroi receipts which do not show entry of any vehicles in which
it is claimed that the goods have been transported upto
Mumbai."
M/S. Malerkotla Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Ludhiana on 29 May, 2008
Similarly, in the case of M/s. Malerkotla
Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Ludhiana, 2008 (229) E.L.T. 607
(Tri.-Delhi), it was held that a manufacturer cannot be denied
the credit on the ground that registered dealer had not received
the inputs.
Lloyds Metals & Engineering Ltd vs Commissioner Of Cen.Excise & Customs, ... on 24 March, 2008
The Tribunal in case of M/s. Lloyds Metal Engg. Co. v.
CCE, Mumbai, 2004 (175) E.L.T. 132 (Tri.-Mumbai) has held that
23 E/86104,86105,86189,86190/2013
burden to prove non-receipt of the inputs is required to be
discharged by Revenue by sufficient evidence. Where disputed
consignments are entered in RG-23A Part I and Part II in
chronological order, the allegations of non-receipt of the inputs
cannot be upheld.
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
M/S. Super Trading Company vs Cce, Delhi-Iv on 27 August, 2013
8. On perusal of the Compilation of documents, showing
correlation of the goods received from M/s. Annapurna and
return of semi-finished goods, I find that the appellant had
produced copy of invoices of M/s. Annapurna along with
transport documents and Bills of labour charges paid to the job
workers. For example, the appellant availed credit on Copper
Wire Bars to the quantity of 10963Kgs, vide Central Excise
Invoice No. 415 dated 05.11.2003 of M/s. Annapurna,
transported by New Satkar Tempo Transport Union vide Bilty No.
239 dated 05.11.2003 which was delivered to the job worker
vide Central Excise Challan No. 609 dated 13.11.2003, in
compliance with the provisions of Central Excise Rules. The job
worker issued Bills for labour charges alongwith delivery challans
issued from time to time. It is particularly noted that purity
check result of the goods by electrolysis method was recorded in
the printed form of the appellant. These evidences were not
refuted by the lower authorities. I find that the charge of
availment of cenvat credit on the basis of invoices without
receipt of the goods was on the basis of statements of various
persons. The appellant refuted the charges particularly by
showing various evidences of receipt of goods, Lorry Receipt,
Purity Check report, Payment of Labour Bills and other details,
which were not disputed by the lower authorities. The Tribunal in
the case of Super Trading Company vs. CCE, Delhi (supra), held
as under:-
M/S Gee City Builders (P) Ltd vs C.C.E., Chandigarh Ii on 20 November, 2009
In the case of
Sterling coach Builders (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai-III (2010 (259)
E.L.T. 502 (Bom.)), The Bombay High Court has held that " In
the absence of octroi receipts, one has to conclude for want of
evidence that the goods did not travel from Nashik to Thane. It
is a common knowledge that if the goods are to be removed
from one Municipal or Corporation area to another Municipal or
Corporation area, the entry tax, namely; Octroi is required to be
paid. Had goods been transported from Nashik to Thane, the
13 E/86104,86105,86189,86190/2013
octroi duty ought to have been paid by the Appellants. The very
fact that, there is no material on record evidencing payment of
octori duty leads us to conclude against the Appellants defence
that goods were taken from Unit at Nashik to Unit at Thane."
Cce, Chandigarh vs M/S. Bhusan Alloys & Steels Ltd. on 2 February, 2001
a. In the case of CCE, Chandigarh vs Swastik Steel Alloys(
2009(243) ELT 343 (P&H ), the High court of Punjab and
Haryana held that "There is no connecting evidence on record
to show that the Octroi receipts could be connected to M/s.
Surbhi Gas Service as these Octroi receipts do not contain
any reference to their name or bill numbers."
Commissioner Central Excise vs M/S Modern Alloys on 16 November, 2009
b. In the case of CCE, Chandigarh vs. Modern Alloys 2010 (258)
E.L.T. 364 (P & H), the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
held that "No enquiry was made by the Revenue from the
Octroi Post Authorities as to how and on what basis Octroi
receipts were issued and, therefore, the charges against the
dealer-assessee remained unsubstantiated."
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S Dashmesh Castings Pvt. Ltd on 18 March, 2010
e. In the case of CCE, Haryana vs. Dashmesh Castings Pvt. Ltd.
2010 (257) E.L.T. 225 (P & H), the High Court of Punjab &
Haryana have observed that "There is no connecting
evidence on record to show that the Octroi receipts could be
connected to the assessee as these Octroi receipts do not
contain any reference to their name or bill numbers."