https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328753 The Tribunal remanded the case to the original adjudicating authority due to the denial of cross-examination of key witnesses, including transporters, crucial for a fair assessment. The Commissioner (Appeals) favored Revenue, citing inconsistencies in statements, lack of documentary evidence proving receipt of goods, and fraudulent CENVAT Credit based on bogus invoices. The appellant's failure to provide supporting documentation weakened their case, leading to the decision to remand for further review. en-us Wed, 27 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Dec 2016 15:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328753 The Tribunal remanded the case to the original adjudicating authority due to the denial of cross-examination of key witnesses, including transporters, crucial for a fair assessment. The Commissioner (Appeals) favored Revenue, citing inconsistencies in statements, lack of documentary evidence proving receipt of goods, and fraudulent CENVAT Credit based on bogus invoices. The appellant's failure to provide supporting documentation weakened their case, leading to the decision to remand for further review. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 27 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328753