9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R K Verma, CA/Advocates, for the Appellants Shri R K Mishra, DR, for the Respondent Per: B Ravichandaran: These appeals of 11 appellants are against common order dated 27.10.16 of Commissioner (Appeals), Alwar. The main appeal is of M/s. Altech Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd., Bhiwadi. All other appellants are contesting the penalty imposed upon them. The main appellant is engaged in the manufacture of storage tank, pressure vessel, structures, heat exchanger, prefabricated pipes etc. liable to Central Excise duty. They were also availing the credit on various inputs in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The dispute in the present case relates to eligibility of credit on inputs during the financial year 2010 - 2011 to 2013 - 14. The R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons whose statements were relied upon. The said request was turned down by the original authority. Learned Counsel submitted that in the absence of such permission, the appellants were severely handicapped in def ending their case. Drawing our attention to the provisions of 9D of Central Excise Act , learned counsel submitted that when any statement given by any person is relied upon by the adjudicating authority, they should first intimate the admission of said statements, thereafter if the noticee seek cross examination, should provide the same and an opportunity should have been provided for the noticee to contest the contents of the statement which will necessary during cross examination. He relied upon various decisions in this regard. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, appellants seek to set aside the adverse findings. 7. On careful consideration of the points raised by the appellants and the impugned order we note that original authority had summarily rejected the request for cross examination. Recording the facts and circumstances of the present case, lower authority do not provide any documents and rejected the right of the appellant for cross examination. We have perused his specific finding recorded in para 17 of the impugned order where in such request was summarily rejected, which cannot be accepted. In fact the Hon'ble High Courts in various cases cited and relied by the appellants, categorically held that when the statements are relied upon by the adjudicating authority, he should first decid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
