Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2021 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 299 - CESTAT NEW DELHICENVAT Credit - Bogus firms - fraudulent Cenvat Credit passing chain to facilitate availment of Cenvat Credit without actual manufacture and supply of duty paid goods - validity of statements relied upon - cross-examination of witnesses - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The basic information as was received by the Department was against M/s. High Tides Infra Pvt. Ltd. Various other co-noticees have been served with the Show Cause Notice based upon the statements recorded during investigation. The most relied statement is that of Pradeep Aggarwal, Proprietor of M/s. Subh Multi Trade Co. Pvt. Ltd. as was initially recorded on 01.10.2015 and subsequently on 19.02.2016 which was recorded before DGCI. The data as was received from his premises vide Panchnama dated 09.05.2015 has also been heavily relied upon by the Department. Retraction of statements - HELD THAT:- The admitted fact remains is that these statements and the data amounts to a third party evidence. Another fact admittedly is that the appellant craved for leave to cross-examine these witnesses but the request was turned down on the ground that the statements of the witnesses were voluntary and have not been retracted - the reason for denying cross-examination is not justified. Cross-examination is a most relevant tool of justice delivery system so as to undo the bias, if any. It is otherwise a statutory mandate flowing from Section 9D of Central Excise Act, 1944. The document recovered from the appellant premises shows that the appellant had maintained a record about the invoices received from various companies whereupon the appellant has availed the Cenvat Credit. Merely because the company issuing invoice was found non-existent, the appellant could not be denied the availment of Cenvat Credit thereupon unless and until his involvement in terms of his knowledge about such non-existence and about the invoice to be bogus is not proved on record. Otherwise also there is no denial that the appellant has cleared his final product on payment of duty - In such circumstances and that the invoices were containing all the particulars as are required un Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules and that the appellant was also making the record of all those details. The allegations based on the statements given by other manufacturers, first or second stage dealers or even by the transporters cannot be read against the appellant. The order under challenge is held to be passed in violation of statutory principles as that of principles of natural justice. The order is also held to be absolutely presumptive having been passed without appreciation of evidence produced by the appellant, but by relying upon the third party evidence - Appeal allowed.
|