TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion if it was so. All the statements were general statements and are vague and not one deals with the invoices in dispute. It has also not been disputed that the appellant had recorded the receipt of inputs in its RG-23A Part I and Part II registers. It is also not the dispute that the appellant had paid for the inputs. It is also not in dispute that the appellant had manufactured final products and had cleared them on payment of duty. There is also nothing on record to show that the stock of the inputs and final products in the appellant s premises were taken and any shortage of either inputs or final products was discovered as a result. The entire SCN is based on presumptions and assumptions and the confirmation of demand based on such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a penalty of Rs. 7,00,000/- on Shri Gaurav Periwal, Director under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions :- (i) the appellant manufactures MS Ingots. Receiving some intelligence from DGCEI, Jamshedpur that non-existent manufacturers and dealers registered with the Central Excise Department were providing only invoices and not the goods and that the recipients of such invoices have been availing Cenvat credit on the strength of such invoices, the Assistant Commissioner of Sikar, Rajasthan had sought some documents from the appellant which the appellant provided. After recording statements of such manufacturers and dealers and commission agents, the SCN was issued. (ii) None of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny findings on these submissions. There is no force in the arguments of the Department that only invoices were supplied without supplying the goods and that the appellant had taken Cenvat credit on the strength of such invoices. The entire evidence is to the contrary. (ix) There was no suppression on the part of the appellant and the Department also did not prove it. 5. Learned authorized representative for the Revenue vehemently supports the impugned order. He submits that Section 9D of the Central Excise Act provides for the mechanism to be followed to make statements recorded by the Central Excise officer relevant to the proving the facts; there are exceptions to this provision. In this case, the witnesses were called for cross-examinati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit. If the department s case is that only specific invoices were supplied without goods the least one expects is to question if it was so. All the statements were general statements and are vague and not one deals with the invoices in dispute. 9. It has also not been disputed that the appellant had recorded the receipt of inputs in its RG-23A Part I and Part II registers. It is also not the dispute that the appellant had paid for the inputs. It is also not in dispute that the appellant had manufactured final products and had cleared them on payment of duty. There is also nothing on record to show that the stock of the inputs and final products in the appellant s premises were taken and any shortage of either inputs or final products was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
