2005 (6) TMI 11

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed none appeared on behalf of the appellant in spite of notice, therefore, the appeal is being taken up in absence of the appellant. Heard ld. JDR. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of MS products and availing the benefit of Modvat credit under Rule 57 of Central Excise Rules. The appellant received certain inputs i.e. MS scrap from M/s. Mahabi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the credit. 3. The contention of the appellant in the present appeal that the Revenue relied upon the statement of Shri Anil Kumar Gupta and Shri Mahesh Sharma of M/s. Mahabir Prasad Co. and the appellants were not allowed to cross-examine these witnesses. The contention is that the statements were re corded at the back of the appellant, therefore, the findings recorded relying the statement w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... are Government vehicles, three-wheelers, twowheelers. In view of this documentary evidence which shows the only invoices were received by the appellant, the mere denial of cross-examination does not cause any prejudice to the appellant. The appellant had not produced any evidence to show that they had received the inputs in their factory, in these circum stances, I find no infirmity in the impugne .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X