2019 (4) TMI 1149

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Ferro Aluminium Alloy products falling under Chapter 72 and 76 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants were issued with a show-cause notice dated 24.5.2004 alleging wrong availment of CENVAT credit of Rs. 3,38,67,123/- and short payment of duty of Rs. 7,71,594/- proposed for recovery of the same with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty. Hence, the present appeals. 3. At the outset, learned Advocate Shri Vipin Jain for the appellants submits that the denial of CENVAT credit relates to a total of 579 invoices issued by 86 different supp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ontention that all these witnesses have stated before the officers that they had supplied the inputs/raw materials issuing proper excise invoices to the appellants against which the appellant had availed CENVAT credit. He further submits that in absence of cross-examination of the witnesses whose statements have been relied upon by the adjudicating authority in confirming the demand, the appellant cannot submit proper reply rebutting the allegation of wrong availment of credit without receipt of the inputs/raw materials mentioned against the disputed invoices. He submits that CENVAT credit attributable to only twelve suppliers be remanded to the adjudicating authority for allowing the cross-examination and the demand relating to other suppl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellant that in few cases the suppliers had incorrectly stated about non-supply of the raw materials to the appellant and their statements cannot be relied upon without subject to cross-examination. We find force in the contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of case including the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II - 2015 (324) ELT 641 (SC). However, we do not agree with the contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant that for the remaining supplies, case should be decided without remanding and scrutiny of evidences that may be resulted after the cross-examination of the relevant witnesses requested for. ....