TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed or transported to the appellant from factory – appellant contented that the appellant was not allowed to cross - examine the statement of employee of supplier - Held that:- This case critically depends on proving that manufacturer of copper ingot did not have the facility to manufacture it in his factory - only evidence appearing against the appellant is the statement of authorized Signatory of manufacturer of copper ingot - if the SCN is to be adjudicated on the bare evidence relied upon in the SCN, cross-examination of authorized Signatory of manufacturer of copper ingot is necessary - - matter is remitted back to the adjudicating authority to proceed - 2444 of 2011 with E/S No. 3185 of 2011 And 2445 of 2011 with E/S No. 3186 of 2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at in relation to the same transaction proceedings have been initiated against M/s V.K. Metals Works by the Commissioner Excise, Jammu vide a show cause notice claiming that M/s V.K. Metals Works have availed inadmissible exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-CE. This show cause notice has not been adjudicated as yet by the jurisdictional Commissioner who had allowed refund of amount paid through personal ledger account (PLA) in terms of above notification. Thus, the submission of the appellant is that till such time the proceedings against M/s V.K. Metals Works are adjudicated the credit of duty paid on goods cannot be denied to the recipient appellant. More so, for the reason the question whether or not ingots were supplied by M/s V.K. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the facility to manufacture the impugned copper ingots. What we find is that there are only three documents relied upon in the SCN issued to the appellants. These are,- (i) Statement dated 21-01-09 given by Sh. Shankar Lal Gupta authorized Signatory of M/s V.K Metal Works. (ii) Statement dated 05-04-10 of Shri. Jagdish Malhotra Director of the appellant company. (iii) Another statement dated 13-04-10 of Shri. Jagdish Malhotra. 9. From para 19 and 20 of SCN it is seen that the statements of Shri. Jagdish Malhotra does not lead to any firm conclusion. So the only evidence appearing against the appellant is the statement of Sh. Shankar Lal Gupta authorized Signatory of M/s V.K Metals. His cross-examination is not allowed. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts and circumstances other matters have been remanded to the original adjudicating authority for deciding afresh. 8. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties and perused the record. It appears that the outcome of the demand against the appellants is dependent upon the outcome of the adjudication proceedings against the supplier M/s V.K. Metals Works which matter is still pending. Otherwise also the finding of the original adjudicating authority is based upon statement of the employee of M/s V.K. Metals Works. Sh. Shankar Lal Gupta was not offered for cross-examination and test veracity of his statement to the appellants. This approach adopted by original adjudicating authority is against the principles of natural ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
