2017 (2) TMI 478 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - denial on the ground that the quantity of imported scrap mentioned under the respective duty payment documents was not receive in their factory - whether the Appellants had received 103.824 MTs of brass scrap in their factory on which they availed CENVAT Credit during the relevant period? - Held that - it is necessary to cross examined Shri Dubey to ascertain the facts; also, it is necessary to supply all the documents including the Daily Lorry Reports and Monthly Lorry Reports to the Appellants so as to make their submissions on the same - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against confirmation of demand and penalty on CENVAT credit availed by the appellant; Cross examination of witness denied; Non-receipt of imported inputs in the factory; Imposition of personal penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002; Reliability of evidence without cross examination; Necessity of supplying all relevant documents to the appellants.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed against the confirmation of demand and penalty on CENVAT credit availed by the appellant company for alleged non-receipt of imported scrap in their factory. The appellant contended that the confirmation of demand and penalty were based on the evidence and statements of a witness, which they were denied the opportunity to cross-examine, leading to a violation of principles of natural justice. The appellant emphasized the importance of having access to all relevant documents, including the Monthly Loading Report and Truck Lorry Report, which were crucial in determining the receipt of goods in their factory. The appellant cited legal precedents to support their argument regarding the necessity of cross-examination and access to all relevant documents for an effective defense.

The appellant also argued against the imposition of personal penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002, stating that in a case of non-receipt of imported inputs, such a penalty should not be invoked. The Revenue reiterated the order of the adjudicating authority, which had confirmed the demand and penalty. After hearing both sides and examining the records, the tribunal addressed the central issue of whether the appellant had received the imported scrap in their factory. The Revenue alleged that the goods were diverted after being delivered to a certain location, as the appellant failed to maintain proper records of receipt and consumption. The tribunal noted the importance of cross-examining the witness whose statements were crucial in establishing the case against the appellant. The tribunal emphasized the need to supply all relevant documents to the appellants to enable them to effectively defend their case.

In the final decision, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals by way of remand to the original Adjudicating Authority. The tribunal directed that the adjudication proceedings should be completed within four months from the date of communication of the order. The tribunal acknowledged the premature nature of certain pleas raised by the appellant's advocate, indicating that those issues should be addressed by the Adjudicating Authority in the fresh proceedings. The appeals were allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of fair procedures and access to all necessary documents for a just resolution of the case.