M/S. Dynatech Control Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 27 to 28/CE/D II/2013 dated 27/2/2013 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Delhi II]

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, 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. Dynatech Control Pvt Ltd. Appellants

Manoj Vij, Director

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

New Delhi II

Appearance:

Shri A L Malhotra, Advocate for the Appellants

Shri V P Batra, AR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing /decision: 28.04.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. A/ 51660-51661/2015-(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal :

The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order wherein Cenvat credit has been denied on inputs received in their factory premises though the dealer who has admitted in his statement that he has issued only invoices and not supplied the goods to the appellant. In these set of facts, the show cause notice was issued to the appellant to deny Cenvat credit on inputs namely GP sheets procured by them. from M/s. Kanika Strips Pvt. Ltd. The main allegation in the Show cause notice is that Shri Rakesh Bansal, Director of M/s. Kanika Strips Pvt. Ltd. in his statement has stated that invoices issued by them are bogus and they have not supplied any goods to the appellant. Thereafter, the matter was adjudicated and Cenvat credit was denied. Consequently, duty is demanded along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty was imposed on M/s. Dynatech Controls (P) Ltd. and penalty of Rs. 15,000/- was also imposed on Shri Manoj Vij, Director of the appellant company. Said order was confirmed against by the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, appellant is before me.

2. The contention of the appellant is that the appellant has received the goods in their factory against the invoices on which they have paid the duty and duly entered in their records. No discrepancy was found in the records during the course of investigation. Moreover, at the time when statement of Director was recorded wherein he has admitted that they have received the goods and their factory physically and made payment through account payee cheque through dealer. It is further submitted that the goods were accompanied not only the invoices but a form VAT 3 of Haryana Sales Tax department which duly showed that on these goods VAT has also been paid and Sales tax departments clearance of the goods to the appellant. It is further submitted that no inquiry was done at the end of transporter as well as manufacturer supplier of the goods. The case of the Revenue is based solely on statement of Shri Rakesh Bansal, Director of M/s. Kanika Strips Pvt. Ltd. dealer which cannot be relied upon without any supporting evidence. Therefore, impugned order is to be set aside.

3. On the other hand, learned AR opposed the contention of the appellant and submits that during the course of investigation mode of transport was asked from the appellant and they have failed to produce any documentary evidence in respect of payment of transporter documents. Moreover, no GR was produced by the appellant and the same is supported by the statement of Shri Rakesh Bansal that they have merely issued invoices and not issued any goods to the appellant. In these circumstances, the lower authorities has rightly denied the Cenvat credit on the invoices in question.

4. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions.

5. In this case, the statement of Shri Rakesh Bansal, director of M/s. Kanika Strips Pvt. Ltd. has been relied upon and no inquiry was made at the end of manufacturer supplier whether they have supplied the goods to M/s. Kanika Strips Pvt. Ltd. or not. In fact the statement of Shri Rakesh Bansal itself states that they have not received the goods from manufacturer supplier. Therefore, to reveal the truth in this case statement of manufacturer was required to be obtained which Revenue has failed to do so. Further more no inquiry has been made from the transporter that vehicle number were recorded by M/s. Kanika Strips Pvt. Ltd. to ascertain the truth whether the goods have been accompanied by the invoices or not. Moreover, the appellant has produced form VAT 3 in support of their claim that they have physically received goods. These form has not been controverted by the Revenue in support. In the result, benefit of doubt in favour of the appellant, I hold that Cenvat credit could not be denied to the appellant. In the result, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with consequential relief, if any.

( Dictated and pronounced in the open court )

( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)

ss

??

??

??

??

2