TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 1106
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....They are availing Cenvat credit facility under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On the basis of an intelligence developed by the officers of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Mumbai Zonal Unit that M/s. SRMM, are availing irregular cenvat credits on the invoices issued by M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd., Kalmeshwar, Nagpur, a manufacturers, without actually receiving the material covered therein. 3. Department had initiated enquiry and investigations at various places like Raipur, Nagpur, Viramgam and Mumbai against the concerned transporters, M/s. Ispat Industries Limited, the Viramgam based dealers and the broker. The officers had, during the course of inquiry and investigation, recorded statements of various persons under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and withdrew various records under the panchanamas from various places. 4. In view of the above facts of the matters and after recording statements of the individuals involved in the conspiracy of passing on and availment of fraudulent Cenvat credit a show cause notice ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e referred judgments have considered all common facts and evidences and came to conclusion that it was case of fraudulent passing of Cenvat credit without receipt of input by the beneficiary. In the case of Amar Ispat Pvt Ltd(supra) decisions the Tribunal held as under: 9. In the present case, the Revenue has raised the demand in respect of 403 invoices. Invoices are pertaining to HR trimmings. Revenue's case is that the said HR trimmings were transported from Jindals, Vasind/Tarapur to Viramgam based dealers/SSI units while the corresponding invoices were made in the name of the main appellant and the said invoices did not travel along with the goods, but only the invoices were received by the main appellant and they took credit on the basis of such invoices without receiving the HR trimmings. During the investigation, the main appellant and their officials including appellant No.2 were specifically asked whether they have any evidence whatsoever to prove that the goods viz. HR trimmings covered by the said invoices were transported to their factory and received in their factory. The appellants could not produce copy of the Gate register, goods receipt note....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e numbers in the above 84 cases are appearing on the invoices issued by M/s. JISCO & M/s. JSAL in the name of M/s. AIPL." (iii) -"vii) Vehicle No. GJ 10 U 8157 and GJ 13 T 5226 owned by Shri Suresh Jayantilal Vyas, were appearing on ten invoices of M/s. JISCO & M/s. JSAL which was in fact indicating that the goods i.e. H.R. Trimmings & M.S. scrap were transported to Gujarat and not to the factory premises of M/s. AIPL. (iv) - "viii) From the records of M/s. Gayatri Transport Service it was found that the goods covered under invoice No. 12109063 dated 31/2003 of M/s. JISCO, Tarapur issued in favour of M/s. AIPL was transported to Satej in vehicle No. GJ 11 W 2910." (v) - "iv) Further from the records of M/s. Star Industries, Tarapur it was found that goods consigned to M/s. AIPL from M/s. JISCO, Vasind under invoice No. 1306515 dated 11.9.2003 and 1307516 dated 11.10.2003 through vehicle No. MCT 5101 and MCU 1051 respectively were in fact delivered to M/s. Star Industries, Tarapur." (vi) - "iii) Shri Janedrasingh Ramsingh Sodha residing at Jamnagar, Gujarat vide letter dated 2.8.2004 owner of vehicle No. GJ 10 U 4367 stated that they had loaded the above vehicle from Diamond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that denial of cross-examination has prejudiced their case. This Tribunal in the case of Jagdish Shanker Trivedi (supra) has observed as under:- "7. We first take up the contention that there was denial of principles of natural justice by not offering the witnesses for cross-examination by the appellant Ashish Kumar Chaurasia, despite his request that all witnesses should be examined. We have already noted that the appellant, Ashish Kumar Chaurasia had cross-examined two officers on 19-6-1995. It also transpires that summons were sent to Ram Avatar Singhal, Ram Kumar Mishra and Ram Bilas Mandal (driver), Jagdish Shanker Trivedi and Dilip Kumar Singhal, who refused to be cross-examined on the ground that they cannot be compelled to give incriminating evidence against themselves in view of their fundamental right guaranted by Article 20(3) of the Constitution under which no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Section 124(c) which provided that no order confiscating any goods or imposing any penalty on any person shall be made under Chapter IV unless the owner of the goods or such person is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard i....