9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1018X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the manufacture of final product in the factory. On the basis of intelligence that some manufacturers are availing wrongful credit on the strength of invoices, without physically receiving the goods, the DGCEI officers conducted the investigation at various manufacturers and transporter's premises. The factory of the appellant was also searched by the officers on 18.1.2007, and resumed various documents including the invoices, on which the appellant availed Cenvat credit on various inputs which were shown to have been used in the manufacture of the final products. Further, the department also investigated the matter and recorded the statements from the Custom House Agent and different transporters. On the basis of investigation, the depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Goyal Tobacco Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, Jaipur-I - 2017-TIOL-997-CESTATDEL. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR appearing for the Revenue supported the findings recorded in the impugned order. He further submitted that the statements recorded from the transporters will have the evidentiary value having not been retracted subsequently. Thus, he submitted that since the transporters have specifically submitted that they have not transported the goods to the factory of the appellant, the charges levelled against the appellant will hold good for denial of the Cenvat credit taken on the basis of invoices. 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 6. I find that except the statements of third party i.e. transporters and the Cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present proceedings. In this context, the law is well settled that admissibility of evidence is required to be followed in the adjudication proceedings, wherein the adjudicating authority is required to examine the witnesses and thereafter, to form the opinion about the admissibility of statements tender by them. In the present case, since the Adjudicating Authority did not observe the mandates of Section 9 D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which is mandatory in nature, in our considered view, reliance cannot be placed on the statements of various witnesses alone, to frame the charges against the appellant for confirmation of the adjudged demand. We find that this Tribunal in the case of Banco Aluminium Ltd. (supra) while setting aside th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
