TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustice R.M.S. Khandeparkar: Heard the learned Advocate for the appellants and DR for the respondent. 2.This is an application for stay of the impugned order dated 07/10.09.2009. By the impugned order, an amount of ₹ 1,39,71,806/- was ordered to be recovered on the ground of wrongful availment and utilization of cenvat credit to that extent, alongwith interest and equal amount of penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs that they have not transported such product from the factory of M/s Kashish Products Impex Pvt. Limited to the appellants factory, has held that the charge against the appellants has been established. On the other hand, the appellants contended that the invoices disclose necessary stamping by check post at a time of crossing of the vehicle carrying the said product from Delhi to Rajasthan and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luntary statement and that the same were duly supported by the statement of transporter and, therefore, there was no scope for any cross-examination. He further submitted that the factory of M/s Kashish Products Impex Pvt. Limited was raided and it was found that there was no manufacturing activity going on therein. Besides, that even in cases of invoices found therein regarding the inputs stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the factory is restricted only for the period of search of the factory and not to the period prior to the search. Besides, the deponent including Shri Naresh Guleria whose statement has been made the basis for arriving at the finding adverse to the appellants, inspite of being requested for, was not allowed to be cross-examined. The decisions sought to be relied upon to deny the right to cross-e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
