9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tement has clearly mentioned that he is a regular job worker of the main appellant and has sent the finished goods back to the main appellant after doing the required job work. That the main appellant on receipt of goods has properly accounted for the same in the RG 1 account and cleared on payment of duty. That the only case is made by the Revenue on the basis of 2 statements of the transporters with respect to Challans wherein transporters have given statements that the inputs were not transferred to the job workers premises. The Learned Advocate argued that their request for cross examination of these witnesses was not allowed by the Adjudicating Authority which is not correct in view of the following case laws. i) Motabhai Iron and s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity. 6. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in the present appeal is whether certain inputs sent to the job workers were properly used or not. Revenue is of the view that only with respect to 2 delivery challans, the inputs were not sent to the job worker and could have been delivered elsewhere. The case of Revenue is based on the statements of two transporters. On the other hand, appellants have relied upon the statement of the job worker and the delivery challans under which the goods were received back by the appellant and accounted for in their finished goods stock. 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 m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een no irregularity and that being the case, there is no option but to hold that penalty imposed on various parties is also not sustainable, The same are also set aside. 7. In view of the above, 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 bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
