TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 33
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and M/s.Vipin Enterprises. DGCEI had contacted extensive investigations and had come to a conclusion that M/s.Nakoda Trading Corporation had not received the imported goods at all. The said goods were cleared in ICD, Tughlakabad, Delhi and sold to various people around Delhi. Various statements of transporters and CHA were recorded. As a consequence of the aforesaid investigation, it was concluded that M/s.Nakoda Trading Corporation had not received the imported goods. M/s.Nakoda Trading Corporation had on record shown the sale of imported goods to the appellants and the countervailing duty paid on the imported goods was transferred to the appellant by issue of invoices, on which the appellant had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal has been issued without examining the documents submitted by the appellants before the original adjudicating authority. He pointed out that in reply dated 18/12/2010 filed in response to the show-cause notice, they had submitted the evidence of receipt of goods in the shape of weighbridge receipt, Municipal Corporation check post receipts, etc. to assert that they had indeed received the goods. However, order-in-original did not examine any of the said records. The learned Counsel produced the said records and showed the details in respect of one such invoice. In respect of invoice No.50 dated 09/07/2005 which showed that re-melted copper ingots weighting 5019 Kgs were sent by Skoda Trading Corporation to the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as follows: The first appellant as also second appellant maintained that they have received inputs covered by invoices issued by M/s.Nakoda Trading Corporation, Mumbai as evidenced from octroi receipt, GRs, etc. The first appellant has however not countered the evidence to the effect that M/s.Nakoda Trading Corporation have not in first place received the goods on which duty has been paid and therefore such goods cannot be consigned to first appellant and can not be received by first appellant. The learned Counsel argued that the entire case is based on the statements of various people whose cross-examinations were sought, Revenue is asking the appellant to prove that the goods received by them were the same as the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther required documents have already been made available to the department by the appellant. As against this, in the instant case, the vital fact that the very inputs on which credit has been taken has not been received in the factory, was not disclosed by the appellant No.1 and therefore, the ratio of above decisions will not be applicable. Similarly, the facts and circumstances of other cited cases are clearly distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, and hence ratio of cited cases is not applicable in the present case". 5. The learned AR relied on large number of case laws states that no cross-examination is necessary. He relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... limitation has been invoked against the appellant. The order-in-original does not record any ground for upholding the extended period of limitation. The order-in-original does not examine the documents submitted by the appellants to establish that they have indeed received the goods. In the impugned order also no suppression mis-declaration or fraud on the part of the appellant has been pointed out. No statements or other evidence has been shown to indicate any role of the appellant in the alleged fraud. The impugned order does not dispute that goods have been received by the appellants along with the said invoice. Even the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the extended period of limitation by stating as follows: ....