Section 9D cross-examination safeguards supported deletion of Cenvat credit demand where transport evidence established movement of finished goods.

The note addresses whether untested transporter statements could displace documentary and cross-examination evidence supporting transport of finished goods to Kolkata. It states that the Tribunal relied on waybills showing transport and entry into West Bengal, while a vehicle owner whose statement was relied upon was not produced for examination and cross-examination as required under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As the Tribunal's factual finding was not shown to be perverse or contrary to the record, no substantial question of law arose and the Cenvat credit demand remained deleted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's finding that the finished goods were transported to Kolkata, and its consequent rejection of the Cenvat credit demand based on contrary transporter statements not tested in accordance with Section 9D, gave rise to a substantial question of law.

Analysis: The Tribunal's finding rested on transporter cross-examination and documentary evidence, including waybills evidencing transport and entry into West Bengal. A transporter had made inconsistent statements, yet the vehicle owner whose statement was relied upon was not produced for examination and cross-examination as required under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The factual finding was neither alleged nor shown to be perverse or contrary to the record; the question of remand consequently did not arise.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose; the Tribunal's factual finding and deletion of the Cenvat credit demand stand in favour of the assessee.

---