ORDER : Instant appeal u/Sec. 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is directed against order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dated 23-3-2015 [2015 (328) E.L.T. 657 (Tribunal)] and is relevant for the period from 4-11-2006 to 29-11-2006. 2. Brief facts noticed are that the appellant-assessee is a manufacturer of Copper Tube, Copper Rods, Copper Alloy Wire, etc., falling under Chapter sub-heading Nos. 7411 10 00, 7407 29 10 & 7408 22 90 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The adjudicating authority was of the view that the assessee had wrongly availed Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 7,32,747/- in contravention of Rule 3(4) of the Central Credit Rules, 2004. It was the claim of the Revenue that the assessee had purchased material from one M/s. V.K. Enterprises of Bhiwadi, a registered dealer who claimed to have received material from M/s. Navneet Yarn Pvt. Ltd., Bhiwadi who issued two bills in favour of the assessee (M/s. Multimetals Limited) for dispatch of Copper Wire. Later on, it transpired that M/s. Navneet Yarn Pvt. Ltd. from whom M/s. V.K. Enterprises had purchased the goods was not at all manufacturing unit of Copper Wire but was manufacturing Polyster Yarn and the said company did not have any facility to manufacture Copper Wire in their factory and it was noticed by the Assessing Officer (for short, 'AO') that from the investigation it was revealed that claim for having procured raw material-copper rod by M/s. Navneet Yarn Pvt. Ltd. was found to be fake. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued by the respondents to the assessee which was responded to and it was contended that in so far as the assessee is concerned, it had purchased goods from M/s. V.K. Enterprises, which has been found to be a registered dealer and the two invoices have not been found to be fake and if the purchase by M/s. V.K. Enterprise from M/s. Navneet Yarn Pvt. Ltd. has been found to be false or fake, the assessee cannot be faulted with because it has purchased goods by valid invoices and goods have been transported & dispatched by M/s. V.K. Enterprises to the unit of the assessee at Kota through proper challan supported by invoices and M/s. V.K. Enterprises is not only registered as a dealer of the Central Excise Division but also registered under the Income Tax Act, Sales Tax Act, etc. Thus, it was contended that merely because M/s. Navneet Yarn Pvt. Ltd. has been treated to be bogus, the claim of the assessee could not be rejected. However, the AO was not satisfied and passed order rejecting the contention of the appellant. 3. The appeal filed by the assessee before the Commissioner, also failed and the further appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal too came to be dismissed by the Tribunal vide order impugned herein. 4. Ld. counsel for the appellant-assessee contended that the order of the Tribunal is perverse and the assessee is bona fide purchaser of the goods and the goods received by the assessee is duly entered in the statutory records and all goods have been transported which has been found to be in order duly supported by bills, vouchers, challan and invoices, etc. The assessee had purchased the goods, received through transportation and the goods having been physically received by the assessee from M/s. V.K. Enterprises, therefore, the Cenvat credit was correctly taken by the assessee. He further contended that it was not for the assessee to prove source of the source when admittedly M/s. V.K. Enterprises has been found to be a concern duly registered under all statutory authorities namely; Income Tax, Sales Tax, Central Excise, etc., and the assessee is not required to enquire as to from whom (V.K. Enterprises) it had purchased the goods. All payments are by account payee cheques and entries in statutory records have not been found to be incorrect. All payments are by account payee cheques and entries in statutory records have not been found to be incorrect. He contended that if the initial seller for some reason is found to be not existing or to have issued bogus bills, how a third party (assessee) can be held to be proving the transaction. He contended that the findings of the AO, Commissioner as well as the Tribunal is unjust and substantial questions of law arise out of the order of the Tribunal. 5. We have heard ld. counsel for the appellant-assessee and have perused the order impugned and the other material placed on record. 6. Admittedly, M/s. V.K. Enterprises, from whom the assessee is said to have purchased Copper Wire in the invoices, manufacturer is shown as M/s. Navneet Yarn Pvt. Ltd. and the description of the goods is shown as Copper Wire which is 99% of purity and admittedly it has been found during investigation that M/s. Navneet Yarn Pvt. Ltd. is not at all a manufacturer of Copper Wire rather has been found to be a manufacturer of entirely different product namely; texturing of Polyster Yarn. 7. We have also gone through the statement of Mr. D.B. Bhatnagar recorded by the Revenue confronting with the material available with the Revenue. If the statement of Shri Bhatnagar, is considered in entirety, in our view, it is clear that the goods received were copper wire which was treated as scrap by the assessee-appellant since the assessee treats all the copper products received by it as a scrap for melting for being used to manufacture finished product. It would be appropriate to quote the questions raised by the Revenue and the reply given by Mr. D.B. Bhatnagar, President of the assessee which provides ad infra :- "Question No. 1. Please state of what percentage of Copper you had received the above said two consignments of Copper Wire from M/s. V.K. Enterprises, Bhiwadi. Please also submit the Lab testing report, if any in respect of the above two consignments? Answer : We require Copper as input of 99.9% purity and the copper wire purchased by us vide above mentioned two Bills was of 99.9% purity also. In the case of Copper Wire we do not require any lab testing as the copper wire normally is of 99.9% purity. Answer : We require Copper as input of 99.9% purity and the copper wire purchased by us vide above mentioned two Bills was of 99.9% purity also. In the case of Copper Wire we do not require any lab testing as the copper wire normally is of 99.9% purity. Question No. 2 : Please state whether the copper wire purchased by you under the above said two bills was of scrap in nature or it was fresh wire drawn from copper wire rods? Answer : The Traders of Copper Wire do not sell/dispatch the copper wires in Bundles in continuous length. They sell the copper wire by pressing and cutting the same into small pieces for their convenience to put the same in the bags. It is further clarified that the aforesaid the two consignments were received by us as copper wire scrap and the copper wire was not in any continuous length. Question No. 3. Do you require Copper Wire drawn from Copper Rods for the manufacture of any goods in your factory other than the use of wire as scrap for melting? Answer : No, we require all the Copper products as scrap for melting and we do not manufacture any goods from Copper Wire other than Copper & Copper Alloy Pipes & Tubes by melting the same in our furnace." 8. On perusal of the above, we find that the President, in his statement admitted that they had received two consignments as copper wire scrap and not as copper wire as mentioned in the Cenvatable Invoices issued by the dealer and on perusal of the answer to question No. 3, the claim is not related to receipt of goods and when the input on which Cenvat credit has been found to be irregular, then the other two issues are consequential to irregular availment of the Cenvat credit. When M/s. Navneet Yarn Pvt. Ltd. who is said to be a manufacturer of copper wire from whom M/s. V.K. Enterprises purchased the goods and in turn sold to the assessee has been admittedly found to be a manufacturer of Polyster Yarn, an entirely different product and which has been proved on record by the Revenue on the basis of the investigations carried out and confronted the same to the appellant, in our view, all these are finding of fact based on the material on record found by all the three authorities who in unison have come to the conclusion that the Cenvat credit was wrongly taken. Even if the seller is a registered dealer under Central Excise and an assessee under Sales Tax Laws, Income Tax Laws and other statutory laws and payment is by cheque, in our view, will not make any difference as long as on investigation it revealed that the goods purchased were not proved to the hilt and Revenue has made out a clear cut case of irregular availment of Cenvat credit. We find no infirmity or perversity in the order of the Tribunal so as to call for interference. We find no question of law much less substantial question of law which can be said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal as it is based on finding of fact and material on record. 9. Consequently, the appeal, devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.