TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (8) TMI 443
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpugned order, they are being disposed of by a common order. 3. The relevant facts that arise for my consideration are that, the main appellant assessee M/s. Dhakad Metal Corporation was issued a show cause notice dated 21.8.2007 directing them to show cause, as to why the cenvat credit availed by them on specific invoices be not denied, as they have not received the inputs as indicated in the said invoices and the credit was availed only on the paper transaction. This show cause notice was issued based upon the investigation conducted by the Directorate of Central Excise Intelligence. The appellant/assessee contested the show cause notice before the adjudicating authority. Adjudicating authority did not agree with the contentions r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of the said brokers, relying only on the statements given by them to built up the case and hold against the appellant assessee, is a violation of natural justice. 7. Learned departmental representative reads the Para 57 of the order in original and Para 4.1.2 of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and submits that there was no need to give a cross-examination to the appellant, as the case was built on the corroborative evidences which indicate that they have not received any inputs as indicated on the duty paying documents and on which the credit was availed by the appellant. 8. Learned Counsel on the other hand would submit that this Bench, in the case of Gold Star Metals Limited & Ors vide final order No. A/202-205/WZ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... earliest point of time, therefore, I have to come to this conclusion tha the statements given by the witnesses are voluntary. As regards the plea of denial of opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, I find that these persons are co-accused persons and their statements are not held to be false and that the case against them is on the basis of their own statement and hence the question of calling them for cross-examination does not arise. Therefore, I can not accede to their request for cross examination of these persons mon merit as well as a matter of right or otherwise. My these views find support from the judgment of Hon ble Tribunal held in the case of Jagdish Shanker Trivedi vs. CC Kanpur (2006 (194) ELT 290 (Tri. Del.), Fortune Im....