9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... failed to respond. Therefore, it is inappropriate to say that the Ld. Commissioner has not allowed sufficient opportunity to the appellant to defend their case. Simultaneously, it can not be brushed aside also that the present demand raised serious allegation ie. non-receipt of inputs, and availment of credit only on the invoices during the period May, 2008 to December, 2009 when the finished goods were claimed to have been manufactured and cleared on payment of duty. While confirming the demand, the Ld. Commissioner referred to the statement of the proprietor, the employees, the transporters, input suppliers and the certificate issued by the Chartered Engineer etc. in arriving at the conclusion that the appellant at the relevant point of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause notice dated 17/10/2012, the applicant made a request on 13/03/2013 for supply of documents referred to and relied upon in the show cause notice. He submits that few documents were though handed over to them but since all the relevant documents, were not provided, therefore, detailed reply to the Notice could not be filed by the applicant. He submits that the Ld. Commissioner has proceeded with the show cause notice unilaterally accepting the evidences referred to in the show cause notice, without allowing an opportunity to the appellant to rebut the said evidences, hence, the order is bad in law. 3. Assailing the Order on merit, the Ld. Advocate has submitted that the demand has been confirmed alleging that the CENVAT Credit was ir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only after the said three opportunity of hearings were over. The requested documents, however, were handed over to them during the course of the proceeding. Therefore, there is no violation of principle of natural justice. The Ld. A.R. for the Revenue submitted that the cross examination was requested by the appellant but not allowed by the Ld. Adjudicating authority after recording reasons. He submits that he has no objection in remanding the case subject to the appellant are put into terms. 5. After hearing both sides for some time, we are of the view that the appeal itself could be disposed off at this stage. Accordingly, with the consent of both sides, the appeal is taken up for disposal. 6. We find that the main grievance of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been manufactured and cleared from their factory. All these evidences need to be examined in detail after taking into consideration the reply of the appellant against such evidences. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that the Appellant be provided a chance to rebut the allegation levelled against them. Accordingly, the matter needs to be remitted to the Ld. Commissioner to examine the issues in detail afresh after taking into consideration the reply of the appellant on the allegations labelled in the show cause notice. Needless to mention the relevant documents relied upon in the issuance of show cause notice be handed over to the appellant if not done earlier. Accepting the contention of the Ld. A.R. for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
