9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t cannot be questioned at the end of the appellant who is the receiver of goods. Further, it is also observed from the Orders passed by the lower authorities that they have not denied the cenvat credit on this ground. Paper transaction - non-receipt of scrap - HELD THAT:- In spite of seeking a copy of these statements and seeking cross examination of these persons, the same was not granted by the authorities. When the statement itself is not issued to the appellant, it is not clear as to whether the same were supporting the Department s case or not - merely by the observations of the adjudicating authority cannot be relied upon that the statements are in favour of the Department. It is a gross error on the part of the Adjudicating auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Muralidhar : The appellant is a manufacturer of TMR Bar. In the course of the said manufacture, they procured 608 MT of scrap from M/s Industrial Associates, Howrah. They have procured 32 consignments under their invoices and have taken Cenvat Credit of Rs.11,21,079/-. After undertaking the investigation and enquires at the end of the supplier, the Department issued show-cause notice on the following grounds : (a) The appellant has not received 608 MT of scrap from the vendor. The invoices were issued only to facilitate for taking the cenvat credit, hence the same is in the nature of paper transaction. (b) The vendor did not have proper infrastructure for manufacturing and generating such scrap at his end. (c) The activity of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the recipient s end to deny the cenvat credit. In view of the above submissions, the ld.Advocate prays that the appeal may be allowed. 5. The ld.A.R. for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. He submits that after thorough investigation was taken up at the end of the vendor, it was ascertained that the vendor has no facility to supply the huge quantity of 608 MT to the appellant. They have made enquiry with the Road Transport Officials, who have stated that the vehicles are not capable for transporting such consignments. Apart from this, he submits that the truck owners clearly state that they have not transported the scrap to the appellant. Therefore, he submits that the present appeal is required to be dismi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udicating Authority has failed to follow the principles of natural justice. It has been held in catena of decisions that the persons recording the statement under Section 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944 have to reiterate the same before the adjudicating authority and then only it should be admitted as an evidence. After this, an opportunity should be given to the noticee to cross-examine them. In this case, in spite of the appellant seeking cross examination of these persons, the adjudicating authority has failed to give them this opportunity. 9. While the Department relies on the Road Transport Authorities statement about the vehicles not being capable of transporting the goods, these statements/letters have not been provided to the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
