AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 769
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cturing of Steel Rolls and procured the inputs from one M/s. M.K.Steels which is a registered dealer. Such procurement was on the basis of the invoices issued by said dealer wherein the particulars were reflected. On the basis of the same the appellant availed cenvat credit of duty paid on the said inputs, as shown in the invoices. 3. As a result of some circular issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata investigation was conducted at the end of M/s. M.K.Steels. The statement of Shri S.K.Gupta, Proprietor of M/s. M.K.Steels was recorded, wherein he deposed that the invoices issued by him were forged invoices and no material was actually sold or sent by him to his customers and the cheque received by them was encashed by him a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... M.K.Steels. Admittedly, the said Shri Gupta was not presented for cross-examination or for examination in chief by the Commissioner. The Tribunal in the case of Commr. Vs. Kuber Tobacco India Ltd. [2016(338) E.L.T. 113 (Trib.Del.) held that Adjudicating Authority is first required to examine the deponent of the statement and there after cross-examination is required. The said decision of the Tribunal stands confirmed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. I also note that the said High Court in the case of Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India [2016(340) E.L.T. 67 (P&H) has held that the statement are recorded behind back of the assessee and cannot be relied upon in adjudication proceedings without allowing the assessee an opportu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h records were subject to scrutiny by their jurisdictional Central Excise Officers and the credits were being availed with the knowledge of the Revenue and by reflecting the inputs in the records. In such a scenario it is a difficult proposition to come to a finding that all the inputs received by the appellants, which have been utilized in the manufacture of their final product, were not actually received by the appellants. I also note that the appellant s Managing Director Shri Lalit Kumar Poddar, in his statement recorded during the investigation had given a categorical deposition that the inputs were received by them against payment of consideration by way of cheques and such inputs were duly utilized by them. The said statemen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... As such the requirement of said Rule 9(3) stands fully complied with in as much as the appellant, by referring to the address and registration number of the inputs supplier, can be said to have fulfilled the factum of knowing his dealer. 9. At this stage I may refer to certain decisions of the Tribunal or Higher Court involving more or less identical facts. a) The Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Commr. Of C.Ex., East Singhbhum vs. Tata Motors Ltd. [2013(294) E.L.T. 394(Jhar.)] has held that non-payment of duty by the inputs supplier is immaterial and unless factually it was established to the contrary, it is presumed that when payments were made on the inputs, buyer is entitled to claim cenvat credit on such inputs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....transactions. d) The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Commr. Of C.Ex., Ludhiana vs. Talson Mills Store [ 2015(315) E.L.T. 415 (P&H)] have also dealt with an identical situation where the Revenue alleged that the first stage dealer did not receive inputs but only supplied invoices including the assessee in that case and Tribunal held that Revenue did not conduct any further enquiry to verify whether the goods were not received by the assessee and also observed that Revenue was required to hold independent enquiry. e) Further, the Tribunal in the case of Commr. Of C.Ex, Ludhiana vs. Parmatma Singh Jatinder Singh Alloys Pvt. Ltd. [2011(266) E.L.T. 67 (Tri.-Del.)] observed that fake number of the vehicles on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dealer M/s. M.K.Steels. The Revenue in that case refused to deny the credit to the assessee, based upon the result of the same investigations conducted at the end of M/s. M.K.Steels and on the basis of the same evidence relied upon by them in the present case. After taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, the Tribunal came to a finding that the assessee in fact had received the goods covered under the disputed invoices in as much as Revenue has not brought any tangible evidence to prove non-receipt of the goods by the respondent. The Tribunal further observed that the same investigation at the end of M/s. M.K.Steels were the subject matter of the Tribunal decision in the case of Juhi Alloys Ltd. which stands upheld ....