2016 (1) TMI 881 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate court overturns duty demand, interest, and penalties due to procedural unfairness.

The appellate court set aside duty demand, interest, and penalty imposition due to alleged non-receipt of goods by manufacturers and availing Cenvat ... Denial of CENVAT credit - non receipt of goods - only procuring invoices - absence of cross examination - Held that:- Cross examination of the witness is required to arrive at a fruitful decision of the case. Admittedly in this case, the cross examination was denied to the appellants. As no other corroborative evidence has been produced by the Revenue to deny Cenvat Credit. Therefore, merely on the basis of the statements of transporter / owner / driver of the vehicle, the cenvat credit cannot be denied to the appellants. In these circumstances, in the absence of any contrary evidence, the demands against the appellants is not sustainable, hence set aside. Consequently, the penalties on the appellants are also set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee Issues Involved: Appeal against duty demand, interest, and penalty imposition based on alleged non-receipt of goods by manufacturers and availing Cenvat Credit on invoices.Analysis:1. Allegation of Non-Receipt of Goods: The appellants were accused of not physically receiving goods but only invoices, leading to the denial of Cenvat Credit. The adjudicating authority relied on transporter statements, recording them after significant delays and without clarity on the drivers/owners' identities or logbooks. The absence of cross-examination for manufacturers was noted, raising concerns of natural justice violation.2. Legal Precedent - Andaman Timber Industries Case: Referring to the Andaman Timber Industries case, the importance of allowing cross-examination to challenge witness statements was highlighted. The denial of this opportunity affected the appellants adversely, as no other corroborative evidence was presented to support the denial of Cenvat Credit. The lack of contrary evidence rendered the demands unsustainable, leading to the setting aside of penalties as well.3. Conclusion and Decision: The judgment emphasized the necessity of cross-examination for a fair decision-making process. As no additional evidence beyond transporter statements was provided, the denial of Cenvat Credit was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential relief. The penalties imposed on the appellants were also revoked, ensuring a just outcome based on legal principles and procedural fairness.