9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s statement may be set aside. However, in view of statement of Director and suppliers at this prima facie stage, we see no reason to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal. - Decided against assessee. - Central Excise Appeal Nos. 133-134 of 2012 with C.E.A. No. 2 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 15-10-2013 - Mohit S. Shah, C.J. and M.S. Sanklecha, J. Dr. Milind Sathe, Sr. Advocate with Shri V.M. Doiphode and Ms. Kiran Doiphode i/b. V.M. Doiphode Co., for the Appellant. Shri Pradeep S. Jetly a/w. J.B. Mishra, for the Respondent. ORDER All these three appeals have been filed by the appellant under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act), challenging two orders dated 10 September, 2012 and one order dated 8 April ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the suppliers thereof. 5. In all the three appeals, the appellant was denied Cenvat credit availed on the inputs on the basis that same was taken on the basis of bogus invoices. In fact, the suppliers of the inputs have made statements that they have not supplied raw materials/inputs to the appellant and that the invoices produced do not belong to them. The appellant sought cross-examination of the suppliers, but the same was not granted by the adjudicating authorities. However, during the course of investigation, the Director of the appellant in Appeal Nos. 133 of 2012 and 134 of 2012 and the authorized representative of the Director in case of Appeal No. 2 of 2013 admitted that the invoices were not genuine invoices to the extent in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no inputs were supplied by them to the appellant. Therefore, the appellant should be asked to pre-deposit only such amounts which have been admitted by the Director or its authorized representative specifically when Invoices were shown to them. 8. We find at the prima facie stage, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal in view of the fact that there is an admission by the director/its authorized representative as well as by employees pointing out that the inputs were not received under the invoices shown to them. If the appellant succeed at the final hearing in its contention that the evidence of the supplier cannot be relied upon in the absence of cross-examination, then entire demand attributable to the supplier ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
