2019 (10) TMI 410

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l No. and name of appellant S.C.N. No. & Date Period Demand O-I-O No. & Date O-I-A No. & Date Remarks 1 Excise Appeal No. 51631 of 2018 [SM] M/s.Jagdamba TMT Mills Ltd. V(H) Adj.-1/CE-72/162/2012 Dated 23.12. 2012 2009-10 & 2010-11 Rs. 22,88,508/- 16/CE/Demand/2016-17 No.82 (RK)CE/JPR/2017-18 dated 28.03.2018 Appeal dismissed 2. Excise Appeal No. 51950 of 2018 [SM] M/s.B.L. Gupta, Director of M/s. Jagdamba Ispat IV (H) Adj.-I/CE-72/161/2012 dated 29.10. 2014 2009-10 & 2010-11 Rs. 2,00,000/- 14 to 16/2016-17 dated 14/16.06. 2016 141-142 (SJ) CE/JPR/ 2018 dated 29.05.2018 Appeal dismissed 3. Excise Appeal No. 52027 of 2018 [SM] M/s.Jagdamba Ispat IV (H) Adj.-I/CE-72/161/2012 dated 29.10. 2014 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uments were collected from the appellants' premises as well which rather prove that the goods were actually received by the appellant. It is further submitted that appellants made a request for cross-examination of witnesses whose statements have been relied upon by the adjudicating authority. The same has also been acknowledged by the Department not only in their inward register but also in the order under challenge. The absence of such opportunity supports has relied the appellants' case while relying upon the following case laws:- 1. Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioenr of Central Excise, Kolkata-II [2015 (324) ELT 641 (SC)] 2. Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT, Bombay [AIR 1980 SC 2117] 3. CCE v. Parmarth Iron Pvt. Ltd. [ 2010 (26....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was given. I am of the opinion that same amounts to a serious flaw which makes the order under challenge nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. Even when the assessee disputed the correctness of the statements and wanted to cross-examine, the Adjudicating Authority did not grant this opportunity to the assessee. It would be pertinent to note that in the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority he has specifically mentioned that such an opportunity was sought by the assessee. However, no such opportunity was granted and the aforesaid plea is not even dealt with by the Adjudicating Authority. It is observed that both the witnesses have mad....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Registered dealers cannot be denied on the ground that the transporters have admitted the fact of non-transportation of goods. It was followed in the case of M/s. Shri Jagadamba Castings Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Bhopal Reported in 2006 (206) ELT 695 (Tri.-Del.). Tribunal Bangalore in the case of Veer-O- Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III [ 2016 (3312) ELT 475 (Tri.- Bang)] has held that when Revenue has not made any enquiries from the Centre of the inputs as reflected in the invoice. On the contrary, the appellants have recorded the invoices, inputs along the available cenvat credit in their statutory records the credit cannot be denied on the sole ground that there was no corresponding GRs specially when the appel....