Case Remanded for Fresh Order: Ensure Compliance with Natural Justice & Allow Cross-Examination Opportunities.

The Hon'ble Member (Judicial) set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh order, emphasizing the need for compliance with principles of natural justice. The appellant must be provided an opportunity for cross-examination, and the demand beyond the statutory limitation period was deemed prima facie barred.

---

---

Issues involved: Denial of cenvat credit due to non-receipt of inputs from Manufacturer M/s Suraj, rejection of retraction by persons involved in the transaction, violation of principles of natural justice by not allowing cross-examination, demand beyond the limitation period.

Denial of Cenvat Credit:
The appellant's cenvat credit was denied on the basis that they had not received the inputs and had taken credit only on the invoice due to non-supply of goods by Manufacturer M/s Suraj to M/s Neo, thereby preventing the possibility of supplying goods to the appellant. This denial led to the issue at hand.

Retraction Rejection and Cross-Examination:
The appellant's counsel argued that the case against the appellant relied heavily on statements of directors, chairman of M/s Neo and M/s Suraj, and 3 transporters, whose retractions were not accepted by the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant requested cross-examination, which was denied by the Commissioner. The appellant contended that under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, cross-examination should have been allowed to challenge the statements, which were the sole evidence in the case.

Limitation Period and Violation of Natural Justice:
The Adjudicating Authority's rejection of retractions without allowing cross-examination was deemed a violation of natural justice. Additionally, it was noted that the demand for the period July 2012 - Dec 2013, with the Show Cause Notice issued on 31.10.2017, included a part beyond the 5-year limitation, specifically July 2012 - October 2013, which was considered prima facie barred by limitation.

Judgment:
After considering the submissions and records, the Hon'ble Member (Judicial) set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh order. It was emphasized that the appellant should be afforded sufficient opportunity for the de novo adjudication process to ensure fairness and adherence to principles of natural justice.

---