9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er: Ramesh Nair In the bunch of these appeals, the main parties are M/s. Baroda Extrusion Limited and M/s. Jewel Metals Pvt. Limited to whom the Cenvat credit was disallowed, on the ground that they have only received the invoices without receipt of the goods mentioned in the said invoices. A detailed investigation has been carried out which revealed that one M/s. Annapurna Impex Pvt. Limited (M/s. Annapurna for short) have issued invoices in the capacity of manufacturer. However, on investigation, it was found that M/s. Annapurna has no any manufacturing facility and therefore, on the basis of statements of various persons, transporters, reports of check posts, the department has made out a case that the goods in respect of which the inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .) (d) Chandan Steel Limited - 2014 (312) E.L.T. 479 (Tri. - Ahmd.) (e) Senor Metals - Order No. A/13686-13689/2017 dated 17.11.2017 (Tri-Ahmd.) (f) Jindal Drugs Pvt. Limited - 2016 (340) E.L.T. 67 (P & H) (g) G. Tech Industries - 2016 (339) E.L.T. 209 (P & H) (h) J & K Cigarettes Limited - 2009 (242) E.L.T. 189 (Del.) (i) Parmarth Iron Pvt. Limited - 2010 (260) E.L.T. 514 (All.) (j) Basudev Garg - 2017 (48) S.T.R. 427 (Del.) (k) Mahek Glazes Pvt. Limited - in 2014 (300) E.L.T. 25 (Guj.) (l) Vulcan Industrial Engineering Company Limited - 2013 (297) E.L.T 190 (Guj.) (m) Self Knitting Works - 2009 (238) E.L.T. 105 (Tri. Mumbai) 3. Shri J.C. Patel, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of appellants M/s. Jewel Metals Pvt. Limited and its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants themselves have asked for cross-examination of the witnesses. In this position, the Adjudicating Authority has not acted judiciously inasmuch as he has rejected the request for the cross-examination and at the same time he relied upon the statements of the witnesses. He also erred in rejecting the request of cross-examination in the impugned order itself whereas if at all he is not inclined to grant cross-examination, he should have passed a separate speaking order so that the appellants could have availed remedy by filing an appeal against such order, without which the adjudication process is not proper and legal. On this preliminary ground itself, the impugned order is not sustainable. We therefore, set-aside the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
