Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 534 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - reliability of the statements - statements made before the officers of Central Excise which were relied upon in the SCN were not put through the process under section 9D of the Central Excise Act,1944 - Revenue’s case is that the trader Maruti Metals had issued invoices on the strength of which the respondent had availed the CENVAT credit but Maruti Metals could not have supplied the goods because it had recorded that it had received from SIPL who, in turn, had not supplied any goods to Maruti Metals. HELD THAT:- As per Section 9D, any statement made before any central excise officer is relevant only if it has gone through the process prescribed therein. In this appeal, revenue has asserted that the cross-examination of the persons who made the statements were not allowed by the authority due to some reasons. However, cross-examination will be necessary only if the statements made before the Central Excise Officers are, in the first place, relevant and they will be relevant only if the procedure prescribed under section 9D is followed. Since this procedure has not been followed, the statements are not relevant to prove anything in this case and consequently are also not admissible. Cross-examination, therefore, becomes unnecessary because the statements are not relevant or admissible in the first place. The Committee of Commissioners who passed the Review order in this case seems to be under a mistaken notion that the Revenue has the power to decide whether the Tribunal’s order must be followed by the Commissioner (Appeals) or not. It is not disputed that Maruti Metals had issued the invoices and the respondents had availed the CENVAT credit on them. It is not in dispute that Maruti Metals is a dealer registered to issue such invoices. It has also been recorded in the impugned order that the appellants had purchased the goods after paying duty thereafter availed the CENVAT credit on such invoices. Even if Maruti Metals had committed some fraud in CENVAT credit which it had taken, that cannot be held against the respondent. The respondent assessee is responsible for receiving goods and accounting for them - There is nothing in the CCR which requires any assessee to conduct such an investigation through its entire supply chain. The assessee is not an inspector and has no powers to examine the records of all the operators in its supply chain. It is for the officers who registered various entities and who receive regular returns, who audit their records and who have power to summon, seek information, search, seize etc., to ensure that no fraud is committed at their end. On a mistaken notion that all statements recorded by a central excise officer are admissible as evidence even if the statutory requirement under section 9D of the Excise Act has not been followed and that cross-examination can be denied by the officers even when requested for by the assessee - On a mistaken notion that the assessee has the responsibility to investigate complete chain of supply of the goods which it had purchased and to ensure that every operator in the supply chain has been following all the requisite procedures and has not committed any fraud - Without any evidence that Maruti Metals has supplied only invoices to the respondent without supplying the goods. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|