Bhartiya Loha Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Shib Dass And Sons Pvt. Ltd., Haryana Steel Trading Corporation, Amar Steel Syndicate, Gaurav Kumar, SC Sharma, Amit Kumar, Altech Infrastructure India P Ltd., Capital Ispat Ltd., RNV Alloys Steels Pvt. And Ltd., RKJK Enterprises Versus. Commissioner of CGST, Customs Central Excise And Alwar – 2018 (4) TMI 816 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – CENVAT credit – inputs – duty paying documents – it was alleged that credit availed on improper documents and without receipt of impugned inputs into the factory – denial of cross-examination – Held that: – Reason for denying the cross examination are mentioned in section 9D itself. The same should be recorded. In the present case, neither an opportunity for cross examination has been provided nor the reasons attributable under section 9D were recorded – appellant-noticee should be provided with all the documents which were recovered from their premises and also be provided fair opportunity to defend their case.
–
The
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e duty. They were also availing the credit on various inputs in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The dispute in the present case relates to eligibility of credit on inputs during the financial year 2010 – 2011 to 2013 – 14. The Revenue after verification of certain documents, and after conducting follow up investigation, initiated proceedings against the appellant and others by denying the Cenvat Credit of ₹ 2,01,52,398/- availed by the appellant firm during the material time on the ground that these credits were availed on improper documents and without receipt of impugned inputs into the factory. Proceedings concluded by the impugned order. The original authority held that appellants were not eligible for said cenvat credit and ordered for reversal of the same. He imposed equal amount of penalty on the main appellant under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 15 (2) of the Central Excise Rules, 200 4. He also imposed various penalties on other appellan
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
isions of 9D of Central Excise Act , learned counsel submitted that when any statement given by any person is relied upon by the adjudicating authority, they should first intimate the admission of said statements, thereafter if the noticee seek cross examination, should provide the same and an opportunity should have been provided for the noticee to contest the contents of the statement which will necessary during cross examination. He relied upon various decisions in this regard. These are: 1) Jindal Drug vs. Union of India [2016 (340) ELT 67 (P&H)]; 2) G Tech Industries vs Union of India [2016 (339) ELT 209 (P&H)]; 3) CCE, Meerut I vs. Parmarth Iron Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (260) ELT 514 (All)]; 4) Goyal Tobacco Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE Jaipur I] 2017 (348) ELT 720 (Tri – Del)]; 5) R D Plast vs. CCE, Delhi I [2017 (357) ELT 881 (Tri – Del)] 3. Further, the learned Counsel also submitted that the appellant was handicapped in the absence of their documents to defend their case as even non
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
aside the adverse findings. 7. On careful consideration of the points raised by the appellants and the impugned order we note that original authority had summarily rejected the request for cross examination. Recording the facts and circumstances of the present case, lower authority do not provide any documents and rejected the right of the appellant for cross examination. We have perused his specific finding recorded in para 17 of the impugned order where in such request was summarily rejected, which cannot be accepted. In fact the Hon ble High Courts in various cases cited and relied by the appellants, categorically held that when the statements are relied upon by the adjudicating authority, he should first decide on the admission of said statements, thereafter if the noticee seek cross examination, should provide the same. Reason for denying the cross examination are mentioned in section 9D itself. The same should be recorded. In the present case, neither an opportunity for cross exa
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =