TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant despite specific request. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the evidence namely RG-23C part I and the bank statements showing payment to transporter and the supplier. Further, department has not been able to bring any independent evidence to prove the allegations of non-receipt of goods against the appellant. Besides this, statement of Shri Sushil Jain dated 09.02.2009 and Shri Suresh Sharma, the authorized representative of the transporter has been rejected without any basis. In the case of M/S NIDHI METAL AUTO COMPONENTS PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-IV [ 2015 (4) TMI 649 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ] and S.K. Foils Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak [ 2014 (3) TMI 412 - CESTAT N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent case are the appellants are engaged in manufacture of Steel Tubes falling under chapter 73, of the 1st Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and they are availing Cenvat Credit in respect of duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of finished goods as envisaged under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 3. During the investigation, certain cenvatable invoices were recovered from the appellant s premises. These invoices were received by the appellants from M/s Steel Mongers. In the said invoices, manufacturer of goods were shown as M/s Khemka Ispat Ltd., Faridabad and M/s Pasondia Steel Profiles, Ghaziabad through M/s Ayushi Steel, Faridabad (1st stage dealer in this case) during the period 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. Sh KR Khemka, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied upon the appellant and cited before the Commissioner (Appeals). 8. She further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the statements made by Sh. K.P. Khemka and Rupesh Bansal and Yashpal Sharma in its true perspectives. She further submitted that the appellant has given sufficient evidence in the form of goods receipt issued by the transporter to show the delivery of the goods, Daily Stock Account and RG-23C Part I and the copy of bank statement reflecting the transactions between appellant and Steel Mongers showing payment through the banking channels. 9. She further submitted that appellant was denied the opportunity of cross examination despite specific request made by them. She further submits that on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eipt of goods against the appellant. 11. She also submits that in the statement dated 09.02.2009, Shri Sushil jain, the authorized representative of the appellant has categorically stated that the disputed goods were received by them in the premises but the Commissioner (Appeals) has not paid any heed to the statement of Shri Sushil Jain and Shri Suresh Sharma, the authorized representative of the transporter. In support of this submission she relied upon the following decisions: (i) Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III Vs. Bharat Metal Inds. [2017 (346) ELT 308 (Tri.-Chand.)]; (ii) Rinox Engg. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh [2014 (304) ELT 436 (Tri.-Del)]; (iii) Commr. Of Central Ex., Chan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 2 is directed to adjudicate the show cause notice issued to the writ petitioners by following the procedure contemplated by Section 9D of the Act and the law laid down by various judicial authorities in this regard, including the principles of natural justice, in the following manner: (i) In the event that the Revenue intends to rely on any of the statements, recorded under Section 14 of the Act and referred to in the show cause notices issued to Ambika and Jay Ambey, it would be incumbent on the Revenue to apply to Respondent No. 2 to summon the makers of the said statements, so that the Revenue would examine them in chief, before the adjudicating authority, Le, before Respondent No. 2. (ii) A copy of the said record of exam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required for this proposition reference may be made to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arya Abhushan Bhandar v. UOI, 2002 (143) ELT:25 (S.C.) and Swadeshi Polytex v. Collector 2000 (122) ELT 641 (S.C.) 16. Further, I find that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the evidence namely RG-23C part I and the bank statements showing payment to transporter and the supplier. Further, department has not been able to bring any independent evidence to prove the allegations of non-receipt of goods against the appellant. Besides this, statement of Shri Sushil Jain dated 09.02.2009 and Shri Suresh Sharma, the authorized representative of the transporter has been rejected without any basis. Further, I find that in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
