Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 618 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - Whether certain inputs sent to the job workers were properly used or not - held that - It is observed from the statement dated 27.1.2005 of Shri Sanjay S Mardia of M/s Nissan Copper Pvt Ltd that they are the job worker of the main appellant. He answered to question No. 14 of this statement that several consignments of inputs were received by the job worker and returned to the appellant after job work completion. Job worker has also received payments for the job work done though cheques. Further cross examination of the transporters was not allowed by the Adjudicating Authority. In the present factual matrix there is a conflict in the oral statement of the transporter and the other documentary evidence produced by the appellant. - in a situation where there is a conflict between the oral evidence and the documentary evidence then preference is required to be given to the documentary evidence which has been done by the appellant in the form of delivery challans and accounting for the goods received for their job worker in the statutory records. Further, only evidence against the appellant is in the form of oral statement of the transporter which cannot be relied upon, when no cross examination of the witness was provided to the appellants in view of their request made before the lower authorities. - Cenvat Credit was correctly availed by the main appellant - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
Denial of Cenvat Credit for non-receipt of Copper Wire Rods sent on job work; Admissibility of oral evidence vs. documentary evidence; Cross-examination of witnesses; Proper utilization of inputs by job worker. Analysis: 1. Denial of Cenvat Credit for non-receipt of Copper Wire Rods sent on job work: The main issue in this case revolved around the denial of Cenvat Credit to the main appellant due to alleged non-receipt of Copper Wire Rods sent on job work. The appellants argued that the job worker confirmed sending back the finished goods, which were duly accounted for by the main appellant. The Revenue's case was based on statements of transporters indicating that the inputs were not transferred to the job worker's premises. The appellants requested cross-examination of these witnesses, citing case laws to support their argument. 2. Admissibility of oral evidence vs. documentary evidence: The Advocate for the appellants emphasized the importance of documentary evidence, such as delivery challans and accounting records, over oral statements. The job worker's statement confirmed regular receipt and return of inputs, supported by payment receipts. The conflict between oral statements of transporters and documentary evidence raised doubts, with the Tribunal highlighting the need to give preference to documentary evidence in such cases. 3. Cross-examination of witnesses: A crucial aspect of the case was the denial of the appellants' request for cross-examination of the transporters by the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal noted that the absence of cross-examination undermined the credibility of the oral statements, emphasizing the appellants' right to challenge and question witnesses to establish the truth. 4. Proper utilization of inputs by job worker: The core question was whether the inputs sent to the job worker were effectively utilized. The job worker's statement, supported by documentary evidence, indicated proper utilization and return of goods. The Tribunal highlighted the need to rely on concrete evidence, such as delivery records and accounting practices, to determine the validity of claims regarding input utilization. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the appellants, emphasizing the importance of documentary evidence, questioning the credibility of oral statements without cross-examination, and affirming the proper utilization of inputs based on the available records. The judgment underscored the significance of thorough evidence and procedural fairness in resolving disputes related to Cenvat Credit and job work transactions.
|