2018 (8) TMI 74

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the appellant and the learned A.R. for the Revenue. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellants have availed CENVAT Credit on seven input invoices amounting to Rs. 8,09,313/- during the relevant period. In the input invoices, the description of the raw material was mentioned as 'wire rods', while the appellant had considered the same as 'scrap' and took credit on the same and used them in relation to manufacture of the finished goods. Alleging that the quantity of raw materials mentioned in the seven invoices was not received in the factory and credit was availed fraudulently, the Department issued a show-cause notice for reversal of credit along with interest and proposal for penalty. On adjudication, the demand was c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....missioner of Central Excise, Meerut - 2000 (122) ELT 641 (SC). 4. Learned AR for the Revenue submits that the appellants have not raised the issue of cross-examination in the first round of litigation before this Tribunal, therefore no such plea could be raised in de novo adjudication. Further, he submits that the cross-examination cannot be claimed as a matter of right, hence denying the same by the appellate authority would not result in violation of principles of natural justice. In support, he has referred to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Manidhari Stainless Wire Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India - 2018 (60) ELT 255 (AP). However, learned AR for the Revenue has fairly submitted that in the order o....