9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 663X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected. The fact of the case is that the appellant, M/s. Rashtriya Metal Industries Ltd are engaged in the manufacture of copper, bronze and brass strips/foils etc. falling under Chapter 74 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are also availing Cenvat credit facility in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. DGCEI, Ahmadabad investigated the case and found that certain dealers manufacturers located in the state of Maharashtra are availing Cenvat Credit of the Counter Veiling duty paid on imported copper ingot/re-melted wire bar merely on the basis of Cenvatable invoices showing procurement of such goods in the warehouse/factory premises. Intelligence further suggested that goods in question were initially imported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls of the present appellant as well as appeal filed by the Revenue. Aggrieved by the impugned order, appellants are before me. 2. Shri. S.S. Gupta, Ld. C.A. appeared on behalf of the appellants and submits that entire investigation has been carried out regarding transaction from ICD, Tughlakabad to their supplier M/s. Nakoda Trading Corporation. All the evidences which are gathered are related to non delivery of the goods from ICD, Tughlakabad to M/s. Nakoda Trading Corporation. However there is no any evidence to dispute supply of the goods by M/s. Nakoda Trading Corporation to the appellant. He submits that they have submitted all the records before adjudicating authority as well as before the Commissioner(Appeals) regarding transportati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given by Shri. Ugamraj Jain, it is fit case that cross examination has to be allowed to examine that on the basis of the records that the material was supplied to the appellant and all the relevant documents are available his mere statement cannot negate the bunch of evidences which shows that material was received by the appellant. He submits that by not allowing cross examination and not considering all the documents by the lower authority there is gross violation of principle of natural justice on the part of the adjudicating authority as well as first appellate authority. He therefore prayed that the matter be remanded to the original adjudicating authority to cross examine Shri. Ugamraj Jain and to consider their documents which shows ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid on material which has not been sold to appellant. However, it is observed that no much investigation has been carried out regarding supply of goods from M/s. Nakoda Trading Corporation to the appellant. The appellant has produced all the records to establish that irrespective of any discrepancy at stage of transportation of the goods from ICD Tughlakabad to their supplier but the appellant has received material may not be same material which was cleared from ICD Tughlakabad. Ld Counsels submission that irrespective whether M/s. Nakoda Trading Corporation has not received the material but the fact that material (may be some other) which has been supplied by M/s. Nakoda Trading Corporation to appellant has not been examined on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
