2005 (6) TMI 11

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... taken up in absence of the appellant. Heard ld. JDR. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of MS products and availing the benefit of Modvat credit under Rule 57 of Central Excise Rules. The appellant received certain inputs i.e. MS scrap from M/s. Mahabir Prasad & Co. On verification by the Revenue, it was found that M/s. Mahabir Prasad & Co. only .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pon the statement of Shri Anil Kumar Gupta and Shri Mahesh Sharma of M/s. Mahabir Prasad & Co. and the appellants were not allowed to cross-examine these witnesses. The contention is that the statements were re corded at the back of the appellant, therefore, the findings recorded relying the statement without allowing cross-examination are not sustainable. The contention of the appellant is also t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... shows the only invoices were received by the appellant, the mere denial of cross-examination does not cause any prejudice to the appellant. The appellant had not produced any evidence to show that they had received the inputs in their factory, in these circum stances, I find no infirmity in the impugned order, the appeal is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court on 8-6-2005)
Case l .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X