9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 754/- has been confirmed against the appellant M/s. Arjandas Metals Industries Pvt. Ltd. for fraudulent availment of Cenvat Credit of equivalent amount in respect of twenty consignments of copper crap received from the manufacturers from Jammu without actually receiving the materials but only receiving the documents and an equivalent amount of penalty has also imposed on the appellant under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, apart from a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the Managing Director of the appellant firm. In addition, penalties have been imposed on the suppliers and the broker, who were involved in the transactions. Aggrieved of the same, the appellants, that is, the main appellant and its Managing Director are before us. 3. The learned Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants should be put to terms. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 5.1 As regards the denial of opportunity to cross examine the suppliers and the broker, who facilitated the transactions, the cross examination has to be given only if the denial prejudicially affects the appellants. In the present case, substantial evidences are available on record and even without placing reliance on the statements of the suppliers, the case against the appellant, prima facie, stands established. As per the Cenvat Credit Rules, credit to duty paid on inputs received in the factory of the appellant can be taken on the strength of documents issued by the duty paying manufacturers and on receipt of the goods. It is for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the suppliers has not prejudicially affected the appellants as the case against the appellant can be established even without these statements. It is clear that the entire availment of credit is only on the strength of documents without actual receipt of the goods. Therefore, we are of the prima facie view that the appellant has not made out any case for grant of waiver of pre-deposit of dues adjudged against the appellant. 5.3 The appellant has pleaded financial hardship as his factory is under closure. Except for the oral submission in this regard, no evidence has been placed before us in support of his contention. Nevertheless we have considered this plea also. However, in the absence of a prima facie case, the interest of revenue n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
