TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 665
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... passed the following order : "(i) I order recovery of Cenvat credit of Rs. 20,88,144/- (Rs. Twenty Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Forty Four only) {Cenvat duty Rs. 20,41,101/- + E. Cess Rs. 40,843 + S&H E. Cess Rs. 6,200/-} from M/s Kisan Extrusion Ltd., Unit-I, Pithampur under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with proviso to Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and the payments mentioned at Sr. No. 1, 2 & 4 of Para 46 above are ordered to be appropriated against the same. (ii) I impose a penalty of Rs. 20,88,144/- (Rs. Twenty Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Forty Four only) upon M/s Kisan Extrusion Ltd., Unit-I, Pithampur under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ealers of which Shri Mukesh Sangla was either proprietor or Director or authorised signatory. The statements of Shri Mukesh Sangla and others including transporters and Chartered Accountant were recorded and incriminating documents seized. Based on the evidence thus collected to the effect that; (i) The dealers supplied goods to various persons who did not need Cenvatable invoices and supplied only Cenvatable invoices to M/s KE-I & II without supplying any goods. (ii) The transporters admitted that they did not transport any such goods and only provided lorry receipt (against nominal amount) in the name of M/s KE-I & II. (iii) Shri Paras Patidar, Marketing Manager of M/s SOL also admitted that he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....djudicating proceeding KE-I & KE-II requested for cross examination of transporters and others whose statements were relied upon but the same was denied. 5. I have considered the contentions of both sides and perused the records. It is a fact that M/s KE-I & KE-II never admitted that they only received invoices without the goods. Not only that, they produced proper records maintained in this regard which showed receipt of the raw material for which payments were duly made and also produced transport documents. As regards the statements of the transporters that they only issued LRs and never transported the goods and the statement of others (including Shri Sangla on behalf of dealers stating that only invoices were issued), I notice that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er complying with the procedural requirement in those cases where non-grant of hearing has not caused any prejudice to the person against whom the action is taken. Therefore, every violation of a facet of natural justice may not lead to the conclusion that order passed is always null and void. The validity of the order has to be decided on the touchstone of 'prejudice'. The ultimate test is always the same, viz., the test of prejudice of the test of fair hearing." It is not in doubt that as statements of the transporters and others were relied upon against M/s KE-I & M/s KE-II, not permitting their cross-examination did cause prejudice to them. In such a situation, such statements of third parties/co-accused whose statements were used to....