9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant and was correctly noticed by the CESTAT is that the statement of 2008 has not resulted in any adverse order on the SCN which culminated immediately thereafter. The present adjudication proceeding is the result of a subsequent SCN as a result of later inspection - The Revenue s claim, therefore, has no basis on this aspect. Feasibility of the nature of equipment that the assessee possessed at site - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the opinion that the analysis of the CESTAT - i.e. the Judicial Member s decision which was agreed by the third member to whom the question was referred, is sound and is a plausible one. The Revenue s disagreement with these findings ipso facto cannot result in substantial question of law. Appeal dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l 2006 to March 2008, these units had filed claim for Cenvat credit for copper cathodes for different quantities - 1959 MT and 824 MT respectively. On the basis of investigation of Anti-Evasion Wing of the then Central Excise Tax Department on 19-12-2007 and in the course of which the statement of one Sh. Shivji Gupta, Production Manager of JVIPL was recorded on 26-3-2008, Show Cause Notices (SCNs) were issued to JVIPL and its concerned officers alleging fraudulent claims. It was further urged that the modus adopted by the assessee/manufacturer was to move input goods to its units from another unit - M/s. JMWIPL at Jammu, which enjoyed area based exemption and then to source locally uninvoiced inputs on which it could claim Cenvat credits f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the so-called retracted statement as well as the technical issue with respect to unfeasibility of the equipment for the task claimed by the assessee with the motive of giving credence to its claim that it could carry out operations from scrap obtained for the unit, the CESTAT s findings were erroneous. 8. Learned Counsel relied upon the statements of Sh. Shivji Gupta and Sh. V.K. Mittal and submitted with respect to the statement of the former, that his subsequent allegation that he was subjected to beating and coercion are unconvincing and that the CESTAT overlooked that the statement was recorded voluntarily and, therefore, had a probative value. With respect to he second point, it was urged that the expert opinion given by Sh. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r factory. The finding of Learned Commissioner that JVIPL was not having suitable Cutter or cutting device for cutting copper cathode, appears to be erroneous in absence of any authoritative test report. We further find that in spite of prayer by JVIPL the Learned Commissioner did not choose to conduct appropriate test in their factory, to ascertain the facts. We also notice that it is not the case of Revenue that copper cathode cannot be used in the manufacture of copper ingots. We further find that the Commissioner have relied upon the statement of one Shri V. K. Mittal, partner of M/s. Veekay Gen. Industries who in his statement dated 8-9-2010 has stated that copper cathodes cannot be cut into pieces by using hand Cutter or through hand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
