2025 (5) TMI 399

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on that M/s AIPL has availed Cenvat credit of Rs. 28,01,76,009/- fraudulently without procuring the goods and thus indulging only in paper transactions; a show cause notice dated 23.04.2007 was issued to M/s AIPL and directors inter-alia seeking to confirm the demand of Cenvat credit fraudulently availed along with interest; seeking to impose penalty on M/s AIPL under Section 11AC, Rule 14, and Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and seeking to impose penalty on the directors of M/s AIPL under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Penalty was also proposed to be imposed on various dealers and transporters (who are the respondents in this case) under Rule 25/26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 as may be applicable. the proposals in the sh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sel for the respondents reiterates the grounds of cross-objections as summarised below: Commissioner has not afforded reasonable opportunity to the respondents in violation of principles of natural justice; copies of documents referred in the show cause notice have not been supplied; impugned order is liable to be set aside. The impugned order is without jurisdiction and beyond the scope of SCN; impugned order relies heavily on material it is not part of SCN. Commissioner ignored the statement of the Director; he relied on statements of the transporters recorded afterwards; Commissioner totally ignored the statement of Shri N.K. Nair on 03.04.2006 to the effect that the transporter manipulated the documents; Commissioner totally ignor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....33 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 have not been followed. He relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Trishul Metal Industries & Others - MANU/CE/0242/2021; N.D Metal Industries - 2024-SCC-Online-CESTAT-1325 and submits that the Bench may pass suitable order on the cross-objections. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. We find that the respondent assails the impugned order in the cross- objections and relies on the cases where violation of Section 9D and Section 33 of the Central Excise Act, were held to be fatal to the proceedings. We find that the appellant has not filed any appeal against the impugned order and as such, they cannot request for quashing the impugned order by way of filing the cross-objec....