TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 1172
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Director thereof, and other associate registered dealers namely Forwarder Minerals and Metals Pvt. Ltd., M/s Unnati Alloys Pvt Ltd (UAPL in short), M/s Moral Alloys Pvt Ltd (MAPL in short) and M/s Brilliant Metals Pvt Ltd and found that they are passing on inadmissible cenvat credit on the cenvatable invoices of non ferrous metals to the manufacturers of excisable goods without physical delivery of goods. The search was also conducted in the premises of M/s KMPL, M/s MCPL, godowns of M/s UAPL and office and godown premises of Shri Amit Gupta. In view thereof, the Department observed that the appellant is also one of the manufacturer receiving the said non ferrous alloy from M/s UAPL. Resultantly, SCN No. 4161 dated 18.11.2016 was served ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntioned that the final product i.e. the High Crome Grinding Media Balls duly being manufactured out of the said raw material have even been cleared against the duty. There is no denial on the part of the Department qua the same. Resultantly, the findings of the authorities below are absolutely wrong being in ignorance of relevant documentary evidence as produced by the appellant however relying upon the third party evidence. The order is accordingly. Finally it is submitted that SCN is otherwise barred by the period of limitation as the demand is for the period 2012-13 whereas SCN has been issued in November 2016. Except the presumptuous opinion there is no cogent evidence about any act or intent thereof, of the appellant for the alleged wr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant but has simply raised the invoices to facilitate appellant to avail cenvat credit in respect of duty paid on said inputs without receipt of said inputs to the appellants factory. Perusal of SCN itself shows that vide nine invoices, almost 9,000 Kgs of nickel cathodes has been delivered by M/s UAPL to the appellant. The SCN further itself records that the copies Form 4 (raw material register) ledger account of M/s UAPL, Jaipur for the period 2011-12 and 2012-13 alongwith the bank statement and the transport documents were submitted by the appellant to show that the impugned input was purchased by them from M/s UAPL on FOR basis. The appellant's specific submission that due to the purchase being made on FOR basis that no freight ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....giving the opportunity to the appellant to confront the evidence recovered from a third party, but against the appellant. The opportunity of cross examination is given under the law as a means of fair trial because it is cross examination only vide which the party gets the opportunity to confront the evidence produced against it. In absence of such opportunity specifically the denial thereof is sufficient to hold that opportunity of fair trial has been denied to the appellant. Otherwise also, the document as recovered during the search of third party premises are highly insufficient to falsify the documents as submitted by the appellant at the initial stage of investigation i.e. even prior the issuance of the SCN. Thus, I am of the opinion ....