TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 1104
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led Cenvat Credit on input invoices issued by two dealers M/s. Shree Shyam Sales & M/s. Shaani Sales both located at Napgur. The officers investigating the case recorded statements of Transporters and loading clerk of weighbridge. As per their statements the truck carried goods meant for the appellants was unloaded at Nagpur and not at Pune. On this basis a show cause notice dated 19.6.2009 was issued with an allegation that the appellant have fraudulently availed cenvat credit on the dealers' invoices without receipt of the inputs covered therein. Accordingly a demand amounting to Rs. 4,41,103/- was raised. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceeding of show cause notice on the ground that though there are statements of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....very basis the adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings. There was no new material found or available for Commissioner to deviate from the findings of the original authority, hence the Ld. Commissioners order has no basis to sustain. He further submits that the only material relied upon in the show cause notice are statements of transporter, loading clerk and dealers. Since the goods were purchased from dealers, it is the dealers who can throw light on the facts of actual sales of the goods, therefore the appellant requested for cross examination of the dealers and transporters, but the same was denied. For this reason the statements of transporters could not have been used against the appellants. In support of his ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ltd. Vs. CCE 2011 (266) E.L.T 375 (Tri.-Bang.) 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. The facts are not much in dispute. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings mainly on the basis that the appellants received the goods on the basis that the purchase of goods, recording of same in the books of appellant and payments there against made to the seller of goods is not under dispute. The first appellate authority reversed the original order mainly on the ground that department have proved their case on circumstantial evidences. On consideration of findings of the authorities below and appreciation of the evidences, I find that the department's whole case is based on transporter'....