9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ANOTHER [ 2016 (6) TMI 957 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT] has held that the procedure under section 9D of Central Excise Act, 1944 has to be followed in adjudication proceedings. If the procedure of examining the witnesses is not done, the statement becomes irrelevant and no reliance can be placed on such statements. The content of the document (lab test report) has to be proved by primary evidence i.e., document itself. Document when reduced in writing are considered to be best evidence and is placed on a higher footing than the oral evidence. The very object of documenting something is to perpetuate the memory of what has been written down so as to furnish prove of itself. If the department relies upon the difference in the chemical c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -duty paid goods (MS scrap) locally and supplied the same to the appellant under cover of invoices and thus passed the unavailable CENVAT credit to the appellant. 3. In respect of the dealer M/s. Sri Amman Steels, it was seen that 23 invoices issued of appellant were defective as the credit passed on was not eligible. In respect of M/s. Kamaraj Steels, who was the dealer from which the appellant purchased the raw materials it was seen that 19 invoices were defective. From the above, it appeared to the department that the appellants have availed ineligible CENVAT credit for which Show Cause Notice was issued on 24.8.2009 proposing to recover the wrongly availed credit to the tune of ₹ 8,07,257/- under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the appellant factory has stated that the raw materials received from the dealers are cut and sized before use. 5. A letter issued by the Senior Manager (F A), SAIL is relied by the department to hold that the appellant has not received the inputs as described in the invoice and supplied by the dealers. The said person who has given the letter is not a person who has technical knowledge of the goods described in the invoice. Another document relied by the department is the lab test report of M/s. SAIL. It is contended that the chemical composition of the goods supplied by the manufacturer as waste and scrap to the first stage dealer M/s. Hindustan Hardware is different when compared to the chemical composition of the goods received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... composition as seen in the lab test report of M/s. SAIL. In his statement, he has admitted that the relevant lab test reports show the discrepancy in the composition of the material with respect to manganese, phosphorus and sulphur. Further the letter issued by Senior Manager (F A) of SAIL shows that the said manufacturer is clearing goods in the nature of defective coils, carbon steel plate which cannot be used for foundries for making casting. All these would establish that the appellants have procured raw materials from Sri Amman Steels and Kamaraj Steels who have purchased the scrap from local market and passed on the ineligible CENVAT credit. 9. Heard both sides. 10. On perusal of documents and after appreciating the submissions, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er viz. M/s. SAIL. Though the lab test report of SAIL is produced, the department has not produced the lab test of the appellant and has merely relied on the statement of Shri P. Periyannan. Chapter IV of the Evidence Act deals with oral evidence. Section 59 states that no oral evidence can be admitted to prove the contents of a document. Section 22 states that oral evidence with regard to contents of a document can be admitted only when genuineness of a document is in question. Thus, the content of the document (lab test report) has to be proved by primary evidence i.e., document itself. Document when reduced in writing are considered to be best evidence and is placed on a higher footing than the oral evidence. The very object of documenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the predeposit and the appeal came to be rejected vide Order in Appeal No. CMB-CEX- 000-APP-110//12 dated 21.5.2012. While so, as there was no stay order in operation, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as per section 11 of Central Excise Act, 1944 deducted / appropriated the amounts so payable from the sanctioned rebate claim of ₹ 18,63,285/-. 14. The appellant then filed appeal before the Tribunal against the order of rejection by Commissioner (Appeals) for failure to comply with predeposit and vide Final Order No. 40184/2013 dated 15.5.2013, the Tribunal held that since the amounts have already been adjusted in the rebate claim, it would suffice compliance of predeposit and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
