CEA No. 115 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CEA No. 115 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.8.2010 M/s Ranjeev Alloys Ltd. ....Appellant. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and another ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. PRESENT: Mr. Sudeep Singh, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Delay in refiling condoned. Heard on merits. 2. This appeal has been filed by the assessee under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short “the Act”) against the order dated 8.12.2008 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Appeal No. E/363/2007-SM(BR), proposing to raise the following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether the order of the Tribunal is perverse as wrong finding has been given that the appellants had not challenged that of trucks entering the Municipal Limits of Khanna when they had categorically submitted that they had actually received the material? CEA No. 115 of 2010 (O&M) -2- (ii) Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the inputs had not been received by the appellants solely on the grounds that the same truck number with same description and quantity had been shown in octroi receipts at Municipal Limits of Khanna moreso when the proceedings against the so called recipient of goods at Khanna had been dropped and attained finality? (iii) Whether it could be alleged that the inputs had not been received by the appellants when the Department had not produced any alternative source of supply of inputs which were used in the manufacture of finished goods? (iv) Whether the Tribunal is right in disallowing the credit to the appellants when there is no evidence whatsoever to prove that the material had not accompanied the invoices? (v) Whether the Ld. Tribunal is right in allowing the appeal filed by the Respondents without discussing or giving any finding on the aspect that the demand of duty was time barred? (vi) Whether the order of the Tribunal is perverse as it has not considered the submissions made before it?” 3. Facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal CEA No. 115 of 2010 (O&M) -3- may be noticed. The appellant is engaged in manufacture of Steel Ingots and was availing Cenvat Credit facility on inputs as well as capital goods. In July, 2000, the assessee had availed Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs.69,163 on two invoices, i.e. invoice Nos. 278 and 279 both dated 13.7.2000 of a registered dealer, namely, M/s Naveen Ispat. The revenue issued a show cause notice to the assessee proposing to deny the credit availed by it on the ground that the octroi record showed the consignee to be some other party at Khanna. The show cause notices were also issued to the registered dealer M/s Naveen Ispat and actual recipient of goods i.e. M/s Shiya Steel co-noticee. The notices were duly replied by them. The assessee in its reply pleaded that they had actually received the material along with the invoices which they had accounted for in their records and had utilised the same for manufacture of excisable goods which were cleared on payment of duty. It was further pleaded that there was no irregularity on their part in taking the Cenvat Credit and, therefore, they were not liable to any penal action. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand of Cenvat Credit and had imposed equal amount of penalty. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that merely on the basis of octroi records, it could not be held that the assessee's melting unit in Mandi Gobindgarh had not received the goods. On further appeal by the revenue, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal by the assessee. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. The Tribunal while reversing the finding of the CEA No. 115 of 2010 (O&M) -4- Commissioner of Appeals had come to the conclusion that the vehicle in which the alleged goods under the invoice whereupon cenvat credit had been claimed, had entered the Municipal Limits of Khanna city according to the octroi record and the goods were not received by the appellant but were actually received by M/s Shiva Steel Rolling Mills, Khanna. The assessee had failed to give any plausible explanation for the same. The conclusion arrived at on appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal has not been shown to be erroneous or perverse in any manner which may warrant interference by this Court in the order passed by the Tribunal. 6. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE August 19, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) gbs JUDGE