Tribunal grants relief in Cenvat Credit appeal emphasizing due process and substantial evidence.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential relief to the Appellants. The decision highlighted the importance of following due process and ensuring substantial evidence before disallowing Cenvat Credit on inputs. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the Department's case, emphasizing the lack of physical verification of stock and absence of cash seizure from the Appellant's premises. The Appellants were deemed to have fulfilled their onus under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, based on a relevant decision of the Allahabad High Court.

---

---

Issues:
- Availing Cenvat Credit on inputs

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by a company and its director regarding the availing of Cenvat Credit on inputs. The Appellant, a manufacturer of Copper Strip and wire, was alleged to have availed inadmissible Cenvat Credit based on statements from other individuals. The Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence directed an inquiry, leading to a Show Cause Notice proposing to disallow the credit. The Appellant requested cross-examination of witnesses Amit Gupta and Sanjeev Maggu, but the proceedings concluded without it, violating principles of natural justice. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

The Appellant argued that the Department's case was solely based on statements without tangible evidence. Witnesses, including Amit Gupta and Sanjeev Maggu, retracted their earlier statements during cross-examination, casting doubt on the allegations. The Appellant contended that the reliance on statements without allowing cross-examination was unjust. The impugned order was challenged for non-compliance with statutory provisions, and the Appellants claimed to have fulfilled their onus under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and observed that the issue was covered by a precedent order involving similar circumstances. It noted discrepancies in the Department's case, emphasizing the lack of physical verification of stock and absence of cash seizure from the Appellant's premises. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of genuine sales requiring genuine raw material purchases and criticized the Department for not inquiring from the Appellant's customers. The Tribunal found that the Appellants had met their onus under the rules, citing a relevant decision of the Allahabad High Court.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential relief. The decision emphasized the importance of following due process and ensuring substantial evidence before disallowing Cenvat Credit on inputs.

---