9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellant-assessee. Accordingly, the impugned order is vitiated being not based on evidences on record and for relying upon evidences, having no evidentiary value. Further, the cogent explanation given by the appellant have not been found untrue in the course of investigation. Thus, the whole case of revenue is based on presumptions and assumptions. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/1628/2012-EX [ SM ] - Final Order No. 71016/2018 - Dated:- 1-6-2018 - Hon ble Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member ( Judicial ) Shri Aalok Arora, Advocate for Appellant Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Supdt ( AR ), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant had rightly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kumar, Authorized Signatory, as result of verification, shortage of 502.605MT of M.S. Ingots was detected. The unit was asked to produce the current invoice book, which was in use, right from the time of arrival of the officers at 11.00 Hrs. The said invoice book was made available to the visiting officers at 17.15 Hrs. Further, in the statement it was recorded that in reply to question number four (which was about the shortage of 502.605 MT of Ingots) they are not in a position to explain the reasons for the shortage detected. From the current invoice book, it was noticed that the appellant had issued invoices from Sl. No.010100263 to 010100272 (9 invoices) all dated 04.12.2008 to M/s Rana Steels, Meerut Road, Muzaffarnagar and also to M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xed by him and question of signing by any other person does not arise. 4. It appeared to revenue that the appellant had issued the said invoices to cover up the shortage detected by the visiting officers on 04/12/2008 as the current invoice book was not produced before the officers till 17.15 Hrs. The follow up investigation in the unit of M/s Rana Steels which was conducted on the same day, revealed that the goods shown cleared under cover of the said invoices could not cover a distance of less than 3kms approx, even after the lapse of more than 12 Hrs. It appeared to Revenue that the invoices were issued by way of an afterthought and they made a remark on the invoices rejected and returned on the invoices by intentionally manipulatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Director Shri Shahnawaz Rana. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order was pleased to confirm the demand of duty and/or disallowance of Cenvat credit on the appellant company along with the penalty and interest. However, the penalty of ₹ 5lakhs on the Director Shri Shahnwaz Rana was set aside. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant-assessee is before this Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant at the outset states that the show cause notice is bad for invocation of extended period of limitation. He further states that there was an inspection in their factory on 04th/05th December, 2008 wherein shortage was found in the stock of finished goods- M.S. Ingo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aiting outside the factory alongwith the invoice of the documents, etc. Thereafter, on receiving instructions from the appellant company, he brought the goods back to the factory of the appellant and unloaded the same. 8. The learned Counsel further states that the revenue placed heavy reliance on the evidence of Shri Ashwani Agarwal, Accounts Manager of M/s Rana Steels, being statement recorded at the back of the appellant. Further, in spite of specific prayer for cross-examination, the said Mr. Ashwani Agarwal was neither examined by revenue during the adjudication proceedings nor produced for cross-examination. Thus, his evidence by way of statement under Section 14 recorded during investigation has no evidentiary value under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dence, as the same is hit by Section 9D of the Act. Further, I find that the courts below have not considered the applicability of Rule 16 of CER, 2002. Further, I find that no effort have made by revenue to reconcile the stock found on the date of inspection with respect to the invoices issued on the date of inspection, before arrival of the inspection team. Further, I find that there is no allegation by revenue of the goods, not being available with the appellant which were stated to be dispatched before the arrival of the inspection team. Further, I find that the appellant had filed the evidence in the shape of affidavit of drivers of the truck, in support of the goods being dispatched and transported, which the adjudicating authority ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
