9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of goods. In such circumstances, when the truck no. are mentioned on the invoices, denial of cross-examination of the transporters who claimed that they had not transported the goods in incorrect and leads to denial of proper opportunity to the appellant. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority to decide the matter afresh after allowing the cross-examination of the transporters. - Appeal No. E/311/11 - Order No. A/87407/16/SMB - Dated:- 27-4-2016 - SHRI RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri Roshil Nachani, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri H.M. Dixit, Assistant Commissioner (AR) ORDER PER: RAJU The appellant, M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as bogus and any rebate claim by anybody should be treated as improper and remedial action should be taken. 2.1 The learned Counsel argued that Circular was issued on 13.10.2005 and registration was suspended on 11.10.2005, however, the invoice on which they have taken credit was for the month of April, 2005. In these circumstances, the invoices issued by them cannot be treated as bogus invoices. So far as the evidence of non-receipt of goods based on the statement of the transporter is concerned, the learned Counsel argued that they had sought cross-examination of both the transporters in their defence before the Assistant Commissioner. He argued that the transport was not arranged by them but was arranged by another person whose name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and thereby availed and utilized fraudulently inadmissible CENVAT Credit. The entire case is based on CENVAT Credit availed and utilized by M/s BTIPL on the basis of invoices issued by M/s Panna Synthetics. During the investigations of the case, the statement of S/Shri Suresh Kheria, Director of BTIPL, Vishwalingam, proprietor of M/s Shuruti Export, Chennai, Paresh Kumar Challodiya, and Shri Sudhir Bhaskar Nandurdikar, proprietor of M/s Sachin transport, were recorded under the Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. I find that the statement of all the above persons were making inconsistent and contradictory. Even, the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Div. A, Mumbai-I Commissionerate, also informed that M/s S.P. Cotton, Shri L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of convenience is in favour of the Revenue. 22. The case laws cited by the respondent are of no help to them as it is seen that either the monthly returns are duly assessed by the department or it is established that the goods are transported to the factory and payments were made. In the instant case, no such documentary evidences were produced either before the investigation agency or before this forum. Secondly all the statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 of the concerned person in this case, were making inconsistent and contradictory and the owner of the transporter, in his statement, clearly spell out that no goods were transported to the respondent factory from M/s Panna Synthetics, Bhiwandi. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
