:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL CENTRAL CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.30 OF 2005 EXCISE APPEAL NO.30 OF 2005 EXCISE APPEAL NO.30 OF 2005 Viraj Allys Limited .. Appellant V/s Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents ----- Shri.Lajjaram a/w. Shri.N.Kantawala i/b. Kantawala and Co. for the Appellant. Shri.S.S.Pakale for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & J.P.DEVADHAR, J.P.DEVADHAR, J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 21ST FEBRUARY, 2006. : 21ST FEBRUARY, 2006. : 21ST FEBRUARY, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and the learned Counsel for the Respondents. We have perused the order of CESTAT dated 24th August, 2004. 2. The dispute is, whether the denial of credit is in accordance with law ? From the impugned order, it is seen that the Assessing Officer denied MODVAT only in respect of those consignment which were supposed to have been transported on motor cycle, auto & non existing vehicle numbers. In paragraph-9 of the order, the Tribunal has held that atleast two vehicle owners with whom inquiries were made, have categorically denied having transported any goods to the Appellant’s factory premises. :2: 3. Moreover, in paragraph - 11 the Tribunal has further held that, once it is established that the input has not been transported in the vehicle mentioned in the invoice it is but reasonable to say that the inputs were not received in the factory as required under Rule 57G. In these circumstances, when the authenticity of the documents on which reliable is placed by the Appellant are themselves found to be false, the contention of the Appellant that in the absence of any allegation that the goods must have been received from any other source cannot be accepted. The claim for credit of duty was based on invoices but there is no evidence to show that the goods set out in the invoices have been received in the Appellant’s factory and on the contrary, the endorsements made on the said invoices are found to be bogus. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any substantial question of law in the above appeal. Appeal stands dismissed. (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.)