TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 897
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se, CGST, Jaipur, wherein he has upheld the Order-in-Original dated 05/01/2017 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise Alwar. In the said order lower Adjudicating Authority has confirmed demand against availment of the Cenvat Credit by the appellant, M/s Kesari Steels, ordered recovery thereof along with interest and penalty was also imposed. In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeal) has upheld the said order of the Adjudicating Authority. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is manufacturer of alloys, steel ingots, SS ingots, SS Sheets falling under Chapter 72 and 73 of First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act for which they are registered with the Department. 3. In pursuance to direction received from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... different manufacturers including appellant. Accordingly, Show Cause Notices were issued and after following the due process of law, the case was adjudicated by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, which was subsequently upheld in the impugned order. 4. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellants submits that the entire case of the Department is made on the basis that the appellant have obtained the invoices for supply of inputs without actual receipt thereof, which is based on the confessional statement of Shri Amit Gutpa and Shri Sanjeev Maggu of M/s Leo Transported Company, without having tangible evidence to support the allegation of non receipt of input from the supplier. The inference drawn from the statement of Shri Amit Gupta and Shri S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otra Cables. 6. Further Shri Amit Gupta and Shri Sanjeev Maggu has retracted from their earlier statement recorded during the investigation in case against the M/s Malhotra Cables and Others. (ii) The adjudicating Authority has denied the cross examination of the witness, which has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order contrary to provisions of Section 9 (D) (i) of Central Excise Act, 1944. To this effect the reliance was placed on the following decisions; (i) Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India-2016 (340) ELT 67(P &H) (ii) Manek Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India-2016 )334) ELT 302(Guj) (iii) Goyal Tobacco Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 24.04.2018 Shiva Metal Traders Agarwal Metal Works Private Limited 3 51-53/CE/DLH/2018 dated 20.07.2018 Comm(A) Delhi. BEE Kay Wire 4 Appeal/CE/PKL/136/2018 dated 16.08.2018 Balarka Fabrication Private Limited & Ors 5 48-5-/VCE/DLH/2018 dated 20.07.2018 Parvati Pvt. Ltd. Progressive Alloys L Pvt. Ltd. and Amit Gupta 6 CESTAT Final Order No. 53196-97/2018 dated 30.10.2018`` M/s Vidya Metal Manufacturing Pvt. ltd. In all these cases the Cenvat Credits have been allowed to the manufacture and penalty imposed on the dealers were also set aside. (v) It is also the submission of Ld. Advocate that the goods purchased were transported in the appellant's own truck. The Department has also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that only invoices were provided without supplying the goods. In the instant case, it appears that the appellant has availed the cenvat credit on the basis of such duty paying documents and cleared the goods manufactured on payment of duty, which was accepted by the department without any objection. As per the chart mentioned in the impugned order, the departmental officers expressed doubt about the genuineness of sales of the appellant company which is about 50% of the total turn over. Therefore, when the sales are genuine, then such genuine sales is possible only with genuine purchase of standard raw material. The allegation that appellant was procuring the same from the open market on cash basis, is not sustainable for the reason that ....