TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 919
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oida on 31st July 2009. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Joint Commissioner, Noida vide his order dated 29th September 2008 had disallowed the Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 33,36,625/- and had imposed penalty of equal amount against the appellants company as well as its Director Shri Rajneesh Kumar Raghuyal as well as against the Director of M/s. Kashish Products Impex (P) Ltd., Khasra. 3. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of PVC/Resin sleeves, protectors, cover connectors, dust boots, battery terminal covers etc. falling under chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In the course of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....there was any manufacturing activity on the days except when he visited the factory premises of M/s. Kashish Products, Delhi; he cannot comment upon the statements of driver/owner of the transport vehicles whose numbers were given on the invoices; he could not produce the gate entry register evidencing receipt of goods under the invoices of M/s. Kashish Products, Delhi. Sh. Rajneesh Raghuyal agreed that he would deposit the duty amount in question by 11-9-06. - Statements of the drivers/owners of the transport vehicles who denied having transported any goods in their vehicles from M/s. Kashish Products, Delhi to the factory premises of the appellants. -  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f any corroborative evidence to substantiate the findings contained in the impugned order." 6. As far as first para from the impugned order quoted above is concerned, it merely relates to some of the grounds on which the adjudicating authority had decided the matter. It does not refer to any of the reasons on the part of the first Appellate Authority for decision by the first Appellate Authority in the matter. 7. As regards, the second para from the impugned order quoted above, it refers to statement of Shri Guleria to hold that the findings arrived at by the lower authority does do not require interference. Apparently said para does not even relate to the contents of statement of Shri Guleria. It merely refers to the fact t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be the whole truth. It is sought to be contended on behalf of the appellants that the said statement was retracted while giving answer to the questionnaire issued to the supplier. Undoubtedly, the same was done about 5 months after recording of statement. In that regard it was necessary for the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the said argument advanced on behalf of the appellants and to ascertain the effect of the alleged retraction after 5 months before relying upon the statement of Shri Guleria. 10. Merely recording that the lower authority has decided the matter on particular points does not amount to application of mind by the Appellate Authority. Having said that the lower authority has decided the matter on the basis of cer....