TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (8) TMI 903
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... etc. They were availing the benefit of Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs received by them from various indigenous buyers as also imported raw material. The dispute relates to the Cenvat credit so availed by them. The Commissioner has come to a finding that such credit has been availed by the appellant without actually receiving input in question. 3. It is seen that during the course of investigation, statements of various transporters were recorded which are to the effect that they never transported the input from a buyer's premises to said appellant's factory. Revenue's case is based upon the statement of RTO to the effect that the some of the registered vehicles are tempo and are incapable of transporting the heavy material. It is further seen that the statements of various sellers of raw material was also record. Some of them have admitted having sold the goods to the said appellant. During the course of further investigation, statements of the purchasers of the final product manufactured by M/s. Nico Extrusions Pvt. Ltd out of such raw material was also recorded wherein they admitted having received the final product from the said manufacturer. 4. It is seen that during t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat there is nothing on record to show as to where the inputs purchased by the appellant have been disposed off, if the same have not been received by the appellant. He further submits that such receipt of the inputs was duly reflected in their record and same have been consumed in the manufacture of their final product which was cleared on payment of the duty. Revenue has not produced any evidence to show as to from where they have procured such huge quantum of input, so utilised by them. He submits that payments were made to the supplier by cheque and there is no evidence of any flow-back of money from such persons. 7. In support of his above submission, he relies upon various decisions of the Tribunal. He draws our attention to the Tribunal's decision in case of M/s. Unirose Textile Processors Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Pune as reported in 2006 (201) E.L.T. 265 (Tri.-Mumbai), wherein the order impugned therein was held to have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the cross-examination of drivers and owners of the vehicles, security officers, clerks at Octroi post was denied without assigning any reason. It was observed that inasmuch as the impugned order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or credence to evidence which is deficient or suspect or incredible but only to confirm and support that which as evidence is sufficient and satisfactory and credible; and corroborative evidence will only fill its role if it itself is completely credible......." There can be, therefore, no "corroboration'' of evidence, which is itself unworthy of credence. Applying this principle to the present case, once the statement of Mr. Unnikrishnan was found to be unworthy of credence, while deciding the case in respect of Mr. Sandhu and Mr. Tomar, the Commissioner, in our view, grossly erred in relying on the very same statement on the ground that it stood "corroborated" by other statements, etc. The above extracted findings, as contained in para 2.26 of the impugned Order must, therefore be held to be unsound in law, even on this score." As such submits the learned advocate that where the statements have not been tested through the tool of cross-examination, they cannot be held to be reliable statement and as such corroboration cannot be found from such un-reliable statements. 8. We have also heard the advocates appearing for other appellants. Some of them have appeared on behalf of su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cannot be held responsible for the subsequent use of the same. Imposition of penalties also stand challenged on the ground that the proposal in the notice was under different Rules whereas the penalties actually stand imposed under different rules. 12. Learned SDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue, has strongly contended that denial of cross-examination has not resulted in breach of natural justice inasmuch as Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s. Kanungo & Co. - 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1486 (S.C.), has held that principles of natural justice do not require that in every matter a person who has given information, should be examined or allowed to be cross-examined. Our attention has also been drawn to the Tribunal's decision in case of M/s. Fortune Impex v. CC, Calcutta as reported in 2001 (138) E.L.T. 556 (Tri.-Calcutta), wherein the fact of denial of cross-examination was held to be not violative of natural justice. 13. After carefully considering the submissions, we find that there cannot be any dispute about the fact that cross-examination cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Request for cross-examination has to be examined in the context of facts and circumstances of that parti....