TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 329
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e slips were receipts given by various consignees (buyers of M.S. Ingots), as the slips contained details of weight of M.S. Ingots, truck number, name of the buyer (written in pencil). The allegation of the revenue is that Shri Kulbhushan Jain from whose possession, the 39 loose slips were recovered, had stated that these loose slips related to clandestine clearance of M.S. Ingots-from M/s Sigma Casting Ltd. These loose slips had been handed over to him by the Director Shri Ajai Jain. It is also stated that he is employed with the group company namely M/s Premier Ispat Ltd. for the last 3-4 years and was working from their office located at Kanpur. He had been looking after the work of transportation, besides collecting payments from the buyers in cash as well as through cheques for all the group companies, as per directions of Shri Ajay Jain, a common Director of M/s Sigma Casting Ltd., M/s Premier Alloys Ltd. and Premier Ispat Ltd. The said 39 loose slips contained in file No.30, resumed from residence (K.Jain), pertain to clandestine sale of M.S. Ingots/Risers from M/s Sigma Casting Ltd. for safe custody were given by the Director Shri Ajay Jain. These are destroyed once the acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....given and hence their evidence is not reliable, and/or admissible under the provisions of Section 9D of the Act. Further, Mr. Kulbhushan Jain had also retracted his statement, wherein he had earlier stated that these slips related to the appellant for clandestine clearance, the same was retracted vide letters written by Shri Kulbhushan Jain to DGCEI, New Delhi and a copy of the same was also endorsed to the appellants. Thus, the whole case of revenue is made on the basis of the statement of Shri Kulbhushan Jain, which was later retracted and the statements of the directors of M/s VVS Alloys Ltd. and M/s Sarda steel Ltd. is frivolous, not based on any corroborative evidence and is a matter of wild guess work and presumptions by the revenue. Further, the appellants had also categorically prayed for cross-examination of Mr. Kulbhushan Jain as well as Mr. Sanjay Agarwal and Shri Deepak Handa vide their interim reply dated 23/08/2004, 05^th February, 2006 and also 15^th November, 2006. But the adjudicating authority failed to produce its witness for cross-examination and as such, reliance placed by the lower court for confirming the demand based on the statements, is fit to be set aside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e loose slips. Inspite of categorical stand taken by appellants that there is no relation with said Shri Kulbhushan Jain, the courts below have not brought anything on record to connect Shri Kulbhushan Jain with the appellants. 6. So far the alleged shortage of Sponge Iron is concerned, on which Cenvat credit of Rs. 5,37,630/- have been denied, it is urged that it is undisputed fact that there was no discrepancy in the stock of finished goods. Further, the entire exercise of purported physical verification was done on eye estimation basis, as such there is no legal backing for sustaining the artificial demand created. The appellant have led evidence before the courts below, being the affidavit of panch witness, who have stated that no actual weighment/measurement was done and the so called physical verification was done on the basis of eye estimation only. They have also stated that they were not present during the Panchnama proceedings and they were called at the end to put their signature. This fact is also evident on the face of record, wherein the adjudicating authority has recorded, as follows:- "from the foregoing it is clear that the stock taking was done on mutually a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ross-examine those dealers and what extraction the appellant wanted from them. 7. As mentioned above, the appellant had contested the truthfulness of the statements of these two witnesses and wanted to discredit their testimony for which purpose it wanted to avail the opportunity of cross-examination. That apart, the Adjudicating Authority simply relied upon the price list as maintained at the depot to determine the price for the purpose of levy of excise duty. Whether the goods were, in fact, sold to the said dealers/witnesses at the price which is mentioned in the price list itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above. We may also point out that on an earlier occasion when the matter came before this Court in Civil Appeal No.2216 of 2000, order dated 17-3-2005 [2005 (187) E.L.T. A33 (S.C.)] was passed remitting the case back to the Tribunal with the directions to decide the appeal on merits giving its reasons for accepting or rejecting the submissions. 8. In view the above, we are of the opini....