9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1018X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansporters cannot be used in isolation for deciding the case against the appellant. Tribunal in the case of M/s Kamdhenu Ispat Ltd. [2017 (9) TMI 546 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] has dealt with identical situation, where the opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses were not provided to the appellant. Since the onus lies with the department to prove that the Cenvat credit was availed without receiving of the goods has not been satisfactorily discharged, the adjudged demand cannot be confirmed against the appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/1989/2011 - A/53070/2018-SM[BR] - Dated:- 4-1-2018 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate - for the appellant Shri G.R. Sing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 15,06,939/- was ordered for recovery along with interest and equal amount of penalty was imposed on the appellant. On appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the adjudged demand. Hence, the present appeal is before the Tribunal. 3. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that no discrepancy in the books was found by the DGCEI officials during their visit to the factory of the appellant. He further referred to the statement dated 18.5.2009 of Shri Vinod Jain, Finance Manager of the appellant company to state that the appellant had received the goods under the cover of invoices and used the same for manufacture of excisable goods, which were removed on payment of appropriate Central Excise duty. Thus, he submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss-examination on different dates, but they could not present themselves before the adjudicating authority. Thus, the statement recorded from those transporters cannot be used in isolation for deciding the case against the appellant. I find that this Tribunal in the case of M/s Kamdhenu Ispat Ltd. (supra) has dealt with identical situation, where the opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses were not provided to the appellant. The relevant paragraph in the said decision is extracted herein below: 7. On perusal of the Final Order dated 05.12.2011 of the Tribunal, it reveals that the original authority was directed to afford opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses, whose statements were relied upon for confirmation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
