2024 (6) TMI 762

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Cenvat credit on the ground that the appellant have not received the inputs and taken credit only on the invoice. The reason for saying that appellant have not received the inputs is that the Manufacturer M/s. Suraj has not supplied the goods to M/s Neo therefore there is no possibility of supplying the goods by M/s Neo to the appellant. On this basis the Cenvat credit was denied. 2. Shri Amal Dave, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submits that under the same investigation, there are other parties, who are similarly placed as the appellant. And there was a case against those parties that Cenvat Credit was taken without receipt of the material and goods were shown to have been transacted from M/s Suraj to M .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the entire case was made out only on the basis of dispute of transaction between M/s Suraj and M/s Neo. He submits that since entire case against the appellant is on the statements of directors and chairman of Neo and Suraj respectively and also of 3 transporters. The retraction made by these persons were not accepted by the Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, the appellant had asked for the cross examination which was rejected by the Commissioner. He submits that in these circumstances in terms of Section 9D of Central Excise Act, 1944 the Commissioner must have allowed the Cross Examination. Accordingly the statements which are the sole evidence for deciding the case cann .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Adjudicating Authority for passing fresh order. Needless to say, the appellant should be given sufficient opportunity before the de novo adjudication." From the above decision, it can be seen that in the aforesaid decision also M/s Gujarat Intrux Limited has taken the Cenvat credit same as in the case of the present appellant and the goods were shown to have manufactured by M/s Suraj and supplied to the appellant through M/s Neo. In both the cases, the charge of the department is the recipient of goods in the present case the appellant have taken Cenvat credit without receipt of goods. 4.1 We find that in the above decision, this Tribunal has remanded the matter for want of cross-examination of Director and Chairman of M/s Neo and M/s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X