TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 928
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Advocates. For the Respondent : Shri K. Sivakumar, Authorised Representative Shri Alok Srivastava, Authorised Representative ORDER Per : P.K. Das 1. A common issue is involved in these appeals and therefore, all are taken up together for disposal. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that M/s Vipul Copper Pvt.Ltd and M/s Atlanta Electricals Pvt.Ltd, the appellants, are engaged in the manufacture of Copper Rods/Wires, Power Distribution Transformers respectively. The Central Excise officers during the investigation found that both the appellant companies availed Cenvat Credit on the basis of Central Excise invoices without receiving the material. Show Cause Notices were issued, proposing denial of CENVAT Credit to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hout receiving the goods which is contrary to the evidences as they placed before the lower authorities such as, receipt of the materials, payments by cheques etc. He seriously challenged the impugned order on the ground that both the authorities below failed to provide the relied upon documents to the appellant. In this context, the ld.Advocate drew the attention of the Bench to the relevant portion of the Adjudication Order and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). He further submits that on the basis of the same investigation, against other manufacturers of the Tribunal allowed the appeal in the case of Monarch Metals P. Ltd. Vs CCE Ahmedabad 2010 (261) ELT 508 (Tri-Ahmd.). In that case, Revenue filed appeal against one of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that as revealed from the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the documents were supplied with the show cause notice. He further submits that despite the documents supplied with the show cause notice, the Adjudicating authority directed them to collect the documents again from DGCEI office. So, the stand taken by the appellant is contrary to the facts and records of the case. He places case laws on the identical issue in favour of Revenue. 7. Shri K. Sivakumar, learned Authorised Representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue in the appeals filed by M/s Atlanta Electricals Pvt.Ltd. and its Director, as well as the appeal filed by the Revenue against M/s Atlanta Electricals Pvt.Ltd. He submits that the Revenue s appeal is actu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts were supplied with the show cause notice, which is totally mis-conceived, inconsistent and contradicting. The ld.Advocate Shri S.J. Vyas fairly submit that they could not file the reply to the show cause notice as the documents were not supplied to them. I agree with the submissions of the learned Advocate that if the Department fails to supply the relied upon documents, it is difficult to file the reply to the show cause notice and therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable on this ground alone. 9. Regarding the appeals filed by M/s Atlanta Electricals Pvt.Ltd. and its Director, I find that these appeals are related to appeals filed by M/s Vipul Copper Pvt.Ltd. I agree with the submission of the learn....