TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 907X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en disputed by the department. The cases of the appellants are squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri VK Bhuraria and others [2018 (5) TMI 818 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that Department has made out a case of irregular availment of cenvat credit mainly based on the statement of Shri Amit Gupta and transporters, but no cross examination of the witnesses was provided to the appellants. One of the witnesses has retracted his earlier statement. Surprisingly, in the instant case, no inquiry was made from the customers of the appellant company, credit remains allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/61297/2018, E/61304-60305/2018-EX[SM] - 62988-62990/2018 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IPL) and M/s Godawari Enterprises (M/s GE) are engaged in trading of excisable goods. Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence in its investigations brought out that one Sh. Amit Gupta had been operating seven registered dealer companies namely, (i) M/s Progressive Alloys India Pvt Ltd, (ii) M/s Brilliant Metals Pvt Ltd, (iii) M/s Forward Minerals Metals Pvt Ltd, (iv) M/s Unnati Alloys Pvt Ltd, (v) M/s Moral Alloys Pvt Ltd, (vi) M/s ONS Metals and (vii) M/s Sanskar Sales Corporation, where Sh. Amit Gupta was passing on inadmissible CENVAT credit to numerous manufacturers and dealers without delivery of goods. M/s GJSPL were found to be one such recipient of invoices. On the basis of information received from M/s DGCEI, the premi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ker, JCB Machine, Autho Rickshaw etc. It was also brought on record by DGCEI that 32 vehicle owners whose vehicles numbers were used to show fictitious transportation by the dealer companies of Sh. Amit Gupta, in their respective statements had categorically stated that they had not transported any consignments of the said dealer companies. Accordingly, M/s UE were issued show cause notice dt. 06.06.2016 proposing to demand and recovery of CENVAT credit amounting to ₹ 7,19,834/- with interest besides proposing penal action. Penalty was also proposed upon M/s GE and M/s NSIPL. After following the due process, the adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original confirmed the demand amounting to ₹ 7,19,834/- on M/s UE (first appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sons relied upon in the show cause notice, whereas the adjudicating authority had totally ignored the request of the appellants and passed the ex-parte order without supplying the complete documents. He further submitted that the impugned order is bad in law being passed by ignoring the request of cross examination of various witnesses referred in the show cause notice. He further contended that it is a well settled law that affording of cross examination of the witnesses, whose version had been relied upon, is must to meet the ends of justice, whereas the adjudicating authority totally ignored the same. He further submitted that the impugned demand has been confirmed against the appellants on the basis of investigations carried out against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther submitted that the accounts of the assessee were duly audited by the Chartered Accountant, wherein he has certified the purchase of the material and its use and further the payment to the suppliers were made against crossed accounted cheque/draft. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the demand has been confirmed by relying upon the judgment which has no applicability in the present case and by ignoring the various latest judgments having direct applicability to the present case holding that the credit is admissible inspite of any lapse on the part of the supplier. In support of his submissions, Ld. Counsel relied upon the following decisions: (i) CCE, Delhi-III vs. Bharat Metal Inds 2017 (346) ELT 308 (Tri. Chandigarh) ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that as for as the appellants are concerned, there is no lapse and violation of any CENVAT Credit Rules in purchasing the material from the registered dealer as the appellants have maintained statutory records and the payments have been made to the suppliers through banking channels and the appellants have paid the duty on the final product which has not been disputed by the department. Further, I find that there are no allegations of any serious violation against the appellants in the show cause notice which is primarily against Sh. Amit Gupta with whom the appellants have no direct concern. 7. In view of my above discussion, I am of the considered view that the cases of the appellants are squarely covered by the decision of the Di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
