TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 324
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra Heard both sides. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants were issued a show-cause notice on 9.5.2014 alleging that they availed credit of Rs. 44,25,702/- of the duty paid on the inputs claimed to have been received from M/s Shah Foils Ltd, but in fact, only the input invoices....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....authorities below explaining the terms ""Bill Condition", "Bill Sales" and "Bombay Sales" mentioned in their private record contrary to the facts, but cross-examination of the said witnesses was denied. He further submits that the adjudicating authority as well as the learned Commissioner (Appeals) placed reliance on the said job-worker's statement in confirming the demand against the appellant. H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aterial from M/s Shah Foils Ltd.. He submits that therefore non-allowing of cross-examination by the authorities below is not resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. He refers to the judgment of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Mohammed Fariz & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin - 2018 (18) GSTL 415 (Ker). 5. The allegation in the present case against the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uded that the material on which the credit availed by the appellant has not been received by them. The appellant vehemently argued to rebut the said statement of M/s Chhail Singh Deora by way of cross-examination. From the records, I find that both the authorities below referred to and relied upon the statement in arriving at the conclusion of credit of Rs. 44,25,702/- was availed wrongly by the a....