75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

May 2015

[2015-TIOL-667-CESTAT-DEL] M/s. Nidhi Metal Auto Components Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-IV.

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri, Mandar Telang Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Allegations made on the basis of statements given by the manufacturer/dealer/supplier of goods without investigation at the end of the Assessee not sustainable.

Facts:
Inquiries were conducted at the end of various manufacturers and dealers, who submitted that they had issued invoices without delivery of goods. Show Cause Notices were issued denying CENVAT credit as merely invoices were issued. The Appellant contended that they had received the goods through tractor trolley along with invoices which were used in the manufacture of final products and payments were made through account payee cheques. It was submitted that no cross examination was granted and the statements did not name the Appellant.

Held:
It is impractical to require the Appellant to go behind the records maintained by the dealer/manufacturer. No investigation has been conducted, moreover there is no discrepancy in the invoices issued and all payments are made through account payee cheques and therefore the appeal is allowed.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

[2015-TIOL-576-CESTAT-KOL] M/s AI Champdany Industries Ltd., M/s. Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkatta-IV

[2015-TIOL-538-CESTAT-MUM] Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III.