TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 644
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant - M/s. Jiji Industries Ltd (formerly known as M/s. Krishna Profiles Private Ltd.) hereinafter referred to as JIL/ 'KPPL' for short and by M/s. Mungad Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "MSAPL" for short). The duty and penalty vide the impugned orders-in-original demanded are as follows: - (Arising out of order in original No. 28/Pr.COMMR./ST/BPL-III/2019 dated 02.05.2019 passed by the Principal Commissioner, Central Goods, Service Tax & Central Excise, Bhopal). Sl.No. Name Duty Penalty under Section Appeal Nos. 1. Gaurav Mungad (KPPL) 1,50,00,000 u/s 26 E/51682/2019 3. Vaibhav Mungad(KPPL) 60,00,000 u/s 26 E/51683/2019 4. Om Prakash (KPPL) 50,00,000 u/s 26 E/51684/2019 5. Abhas Mungad (AS-RAPL) 50,00,000 u/s 26 E/51685/2019 6. Ravi Ladda (Director RAPL & DAPL)Prop. Ocean Impox 80,00,000 u/s 26 E/51686/2019 7. MSAPL 50,00,000 u/s 26 E/52069/2019 8. JJIL (KPPL) 2,39,15,431 (rebate) 2,39,15,431/- u/s 11C E/52672/2019 9. JJIL (KPPL) 50,00,000/- u/s 26 E/52672/2019 10. RAPL 85,54,240 Cenvat credit 85,54,240/- U/s 26 11. P. Ent. 1,34,66,57....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tral excise duty paid on the goods cleared for export, or DEPB. 5.1 Another company, Mungad Steels and Alloys Pvt. Ltd., of which Shri Gaurav Mungad is one of the Directors, has got central excise registration (as a manufacturer & Trader) located at Rambali Nagar, Indore, is engaged in the manufacture and removal of excisable goods, being Aluminium profiles, ingots, etc. and are also engaged in trading including export. 5.2 Ocean Impex is a proprietorship concern of Mr. Ravi Laddha and is a registered dealer and an importer of aluminium scrap. They have supplied scrap mainly to JIL and Prerna Enterprises (PE), another registered dealer and exporter of aluminium alloy conductors. Its proprietor is one Shri Praveen Tamhankar. Further, Prerna Enterprises resold scrap to Mungad Steels. Mungad Steels supplied ingots to JIL & Prerna Enterprises. Further, Mungad Steels purchased the aluminium conductors from JIL and thereafter exported the same under rebate claim. They also sold conductors to Prerna Enterprises, and Prerna Enterprises have exported the same under the claim of rebate. 6. JIL/KPPL purchased scrap from Ocean Impex and also from open market as well as direct import. They h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ized from the factory has shown as Entry No.332 dated 11 November 2010, Invoice No. KP/PIV OID/022 - Party - S.S. Enterprises - ECC No. AB UPL 6134 BET 001. (This ECC number pertains to M/s. Ocean Impex). Such invoices appeared to be fabricated and forged. Initially, Prerna Enterprises availed fraudulent Cenvat credit and subsequently passed on the same to M/s.KPPL or Mungad Steels, through Ocean Impex. 8. The residential premises of Shri Praveen Tamhankar, Proprietor of Prerna Enterprises was also searched on 20 November 2011, during which the officers recovered and seized photocopies of purchase invoices of M/s.Prena Enterprises. However, no sales invoices of Prena Enterprises were available at the residence. These purchase invoices had purportedly been issued by certain parties based at Ahmedabad and Mumbai namely M/s. Maruti Aluminium Private Ltd., M/s.Maliwal Impex (P) Ltd., Ghanshyam Metal Udyog, Ahmedabad, M/s.Servashwar Metal, Ahmedabad and Ramdev Enterprises, Ahmedabad and M/s. Bothra Metals & Alloys (P) Ltd. and M/s. R.K. Metal Corporation, Mumbai. It appeared to Revenue that the serial No. of these invoices along with ECC code of supplier parties (who purportedly seemed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se Act, 1944. The firms/companies submitted their documents like sales ledgers and original copies of the sales invoices bearing the same serial Nos. which were appearing (as per seized photocopies of the purchase invoices of Prena Enterprises), etc. It appeared that these parties of Ahmedabad and Mumbai never sold any goods to Prerna Enterprises, KPPL, Mungad Steels, Ocean Impex, etc., on the strength of the said invoices. They had never issued such invoices, so recovered from the premises of Praveen Tamhankar, and whose details were appearing in cenvat register of KPPL, as initially submitted with the Range Officer, and available in the seized hard disc. It appeared that these parties had sold aluminium scrap to some other persons vide the invoices of even serial nos. Most of these dealers categorically and vehmentally stated in their statements that all the seized invoices shown to them (recovered from Shri Praveen Tamhankar), were fake, bogus and forged. Thus, it appeared cenvat credit was availed by KPPL, on the strength of such bogus, fake and forged invoices. Thus, it appeared that neither the goods were received by M/s. Ocean Impex/Prerna Enterprises nor by KPPL against suc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....portation. It was also noticed that the vehicle no. shown for transportation were incapable/unregistered. Similar observations were there by Revenue, after scrutiny of Cenvat Register for the month of November 2010 to December 2010. 13. During scrutiny of Cenvat register (seized from the factory), it appeared to Revenue that KPPL have availed fraudulent cenvat credit on the basis of invoices issued by 'Prerna Enterprises' towards purchase of furnace oil. It appeared that Prerna Enterprises had issued forged invoices bearing Nos.KP/FO/001 to 019 during the month of December 2010 and (Nos.KP/FO/020 to KP/FO/024) during January 2011. As per the invoices, it was evident that Prena Enterprises had shown to have availed cenvat credit on invoices issued by M/s. Essar Oil Ltd, Jamnagar and Kotak Petrochem Private Ltd Jodhpur; whereas on going through the cenvat register as available in the hard disk, (as submitted initially by KPPL to Range Office) and the printouts taken from hard disk on 2nd December, 2011, KPPL had mentioned therein the different invoice number pertaining to the parties, i.e M/s. VCRM Petrochemicals and M/s. Quantum Urja Pvt. Ltd. Further; reference was made to DGCEI, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fidavit dated 2.12.2011 before the Notary Public, Bhilwara, Rajasthan. It is stated that his statement was recorded under pressure and is not true and correct. The said retraction was refuted by the Addl. Director, DGCEI vide letter dated 17.01.2012. In the course of search at Mungad & Alloys Pvt. Ltd., no records or documents were found. It was stated by the Director that the records were sent to the Consultant at Mumbai. They shall arrange to call for the same for verification. It was subsequently informed by MSAPL that the said records, which were being carried by the Representative - Shri Rahul Parihar, who was returning from Mumbai on 18.11.2011 to Indore, got lost in transit and as the person was traveling in train in an unreserved accommodation, resulting into loss of the records due to theft. Copy of the FIR was also filed. Inquiry was also made one from Shri Sanjay Sharma, Husband of the owner of the Truck No.MP09GE2021, as the said truck number was appearing in several invoices. In his statement, Shri Sanjay Sharma stated that the truck is a Tata 1109 having capacity of 9 MT having closed container type body, which is mainly used for transportation of medicines. It is fur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m. He accepted the billities of Gupta Transport Services as prepared by his Representative, Shri Ajay Rehtankar. He also stated that the name of the supplier in some of the billities of Ocean Impex is not known to him. Shri Sanjay Gupta subsequently retracted his statement vide affidavit dated 11.12.2011, which was received in the office of the DGCEI on 20.12.2011. Thereafter, in response to further summons issued, Sanjay Gupta did not appear before the Revenue Authorities. 19. Statement of one Shri Vikas Awasthi, Proprietor of Sonu Road Line, Indore was recorded on 7.12.2011, who, inter alia, stated that they own 5 trucks, which are engaged in transportation works. They also arranged trucks from other transporters on commission basis for transportation work on the strength of their billities or LRs. Further, it was stated by him that he knows Shri Gaurav Mungad and accepted that he has been doing transport work for them regularly for many years. 20. Statement of Shri Rajendra Kumar Bansi Lal Chechani, Director of Maruti Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. (supplier of goods to Prerna Enterprises) was recorded on 8.12.2011. He stated that he is Director of Maruti Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. engaged in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....denied any transaction with Prerna Enterprises, DAPL, Ocean Impex but accepted having transactions with MSAPL and JIJI/KPPL. On being confronted with the copy of the invoices purportedly issued by them (found from the premises of Prerna Enterprises), he denied having issued any such invoices. From the statement of one Shri Mukesh Samdani, Director of Sarveweswar Metal, Ahmedabad was recorded on 10.12.2011, wherein he inter alia stated that they are registered dealer in aluminum scrap. They have never issued any invoices nor had any transactions with Prerna Enterprises, DAPL, MSAPL, SS Enterprises, S.K. Marketing and Adinath Traders. However, he had accepted their transactions and supplied aluminum scrap to KPPL. On being confronted with one invoice purportedly issued by them seized from the premises of Prerna Enterprises, he denied the same and further produced copies of the parallel invoices for transaction with some other party. 24. Further, the statement of Shri Satish Bucha, Accountant of Bothra Metals & Alloys, Mumbai-II was recorded on 20.12.2011, who, inter alia, stated that they were engaged in the manufacture of aluminum ingots and also engaged in trading of aluminum scra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g for a verification for reasonable time, rebate claims were sanctioned on 1.2.2011, asking the RO to confirm the correctness of duty payment within 15 days, failing which, it shall be presumed that appropriate duty has been paid. It further appeared that no proper efforts were made by the Range Officer, Range-IV, Indore to verify the genuineness of input invoices and excise duty paid on inputs received by MSAPL. However, the Range Officer issued verification certificate regarding correctness of the duty paid by MSAPL on the invoices issued by them to KPPL. 27. In the course of investigation, Dy. Commissioner, Bhopal-II, vide his letter dated 30.01.2012 to DGCEI stated that, as appearing from the original file in respect of rebate claims, filed by Prerna Enterprises (30) as merchant exporter and KPPL (64) and RAPL. It appeared that invoices were issued by RAPL to Star Innovation Middle East, Sharjah, for which ARE-I were filed by RAPL, as a manufacturer, for export of Alloy Aluminium Conductors under warehouse sealing from ICD, Mandideep. ARE-I were filed by Prerna Enterprises showing the manufacturer as KPPL or MSAPL for export of alloy aluminium conductors under warehouse sealin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urav Mungad, Managing Director of JIJI/KPPL and Director of MSAPL was recorded on several dates (10.01.2012, 11.01.2012, 01.06.2012 to 07.06.2012), wherein, inter alia, he stated that burning loss is normal from 5 to 10% and generation of dross/scrap was between 25% to 35%. Further, Aluminium chips and process scrap is also generated during manufacture, which is about 10% to 20%, in the manufacture of aluminium profile/conductors. The appellant maintained Form-IV Register for input. Furnace oil is not entered in the Form-IV register and the same is directly consumed. Further, KPPL is also engaged in trading in non-cenvatable scrap. Such scrap does not enter the factory premises, only the accounting entries are made. He further stated that Aluminium Scrap is imported directly or on high Sea Sale basis by KPPL/M/s.JIJI. Apart from import, Aluminium scrap has also been procured from domestic market. Ocean Impex, MSAPL, Maliwal Impex, Maruti Aluminium Pvt.Ltd., Ghanshyam Metal Udyog, M/s.MV Enterprises, M/s.Jagdish Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. , M/s.Kanha Aluminium Pvt. Ltd., M/s.Kanha Metal Corporation and M/s.Prerna Enterprises, etc. On being enquired from the appellants, as to where are the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... his request, Shri Praveen Tamhankar, Proprietor of Prerna Enterprises was providing the professional services in relation to DGFT, export/import, etc. They have also been purchasing the raw materials and inputs from Prerna Enterprises, who are registered dealers under the Central Excise Act. They also received Aluminium scrap and furnace oil from Prerna Enterprises during 2010-2011. 31. On being confronted with the statement of various parties alleged suppliers of raw materials at Ahmedabad and Mumbai, with documentary evidence, collected from them, wherein most of them have denied having transaction with Prerna Enterprises, MSAPL, Ocean Impex, Mr. Gaurav Mungad confirmed and admitted that copy of the purchase invoice recovered from the premises of the Praveen Tamhankar, Proprietor of Prerna Enterprises, are fake/forged and further stated that the cenvat credit passed on by Prerna Enterprises on the strength of such invoices to KPPL is wrong. He further stated that Shri Dharamendra, Junior Accountant, who was working as a trainee at that time, committed certain mistakes in the books of accounts, and in the vouchers/invoices in some cases, wherein, the inputs purchased from Ocean ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ansport documents are not available. 33. He further stated that Shri Ravi Laddha, Proprietor of Ocean Impex is not very well conversant with the documentation and hence committed clerical errors in documentation. 34. On being confronted with the high export price of Aluminium Conductors, Shri Gaurav Mungad stated that MSAPL had purchased inputs @ 500 kgs. approximately and after processing, they have sold the same @2100/- per kg. for export. Hence, the goods manufactured under technical specification required expertise and also the generation of higher scrap. Further, stated that KPPL has got two melting furnace, in which scrap of Aluminium, Alloy, etc. are melted so as to manufacture Aluminum logs containing Alloy as per specific order. Such logs are converted into billets after necessary cutting and thereafter further extruded on extrusions press to manufacture Aluminum Profile and Alloy Aluminum Conductors. Alloy Aluminum Conductors are solid sections, whereas Aluminum Profiles are either solid or hollow sections. 35. On being confronted with the allegation that prior to October, 2010, the sale price of Aluminum Profile /conductors was in the range of 398 to 460 per kg. where....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pending, which they shall deposit in due course. He further stated that on verbal request they have supplied costing sheet of export goods to the officers of ICD, Pithampur. He further stated that in the month of November, 2011, their 4 export containers, which were factory stuffed was opened and examined by the officers at ICD, Pithampur.Samples were drawn and thereafter allowed for export. Such exports were under the claim of duty drawback, which is yet to be sanctioned. He further stated that Shri O.P. Maheshwari, Shri Vaibhav Mungad, Shri Ravi Laddha, Shri Abhash Mungad and Shri Praveen Tamhankar acted in his over all directions. 42. Mr. Abhash Mungad (Nephew of Shri Gaurav Mungad), Director of Field Irrigation Pvt. Ltd. and Authorised Signatory of RAPL appeared before the Revenue Authorities and his statement was recorded on 11.06.2012. He, inter alia, stated that Field Irrigation Pvt. Ltd is a manufacturing unit, which has come in existence in April, 2011 for manufacture of drip irrigation pipes and they started production since Jan. 2012. He also confirmed that the premises were earlier owned by MSAPL. 43. Shri O.P. Maheshwari, Director of JIJI Industries and Authorised S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lter in the factory of JIJI, wherein he was posted for about three years. He left the job from JIJI in April, 2011. During the period, he worked with JIJI, from April, 2008 to April, 2011, he manufactured Aluminium Sections, Profiles, etc. The furnace capacity of JIJI is approximately 3 MT. From Aluminium Scrap, aluminium logs were manufactured of 12 Ft to 16 Ft. These were further cut and extruded to manufacture Aluminium Sections /profiles. He also stated that during October, 2010 to April, 2011, JIJI was manufacturing Aluminium flats/bars, which were exported by them. He has never seen silver scrap being used in the factory of JIJI. Aluminium dross was generated approximately 8% to 10%. He further stated that he did sign on some papers/forms at the instructions of Shri Shailendra Yadav, who is working as Driver in JIJI Industries. He does not deny that the bank account was open in the name of partnership firm and proprietorship firm, but has never operated such accounts. 48. During investigation, it was observed that MSAPL have requested the Superintendent of Customs, ICD, Pithampur for amendment in 36 shipping bills during the period 06.01.2011 to 17.03.2011. 49. Samples were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12 of the Asstt. Chemical Examiner, CRCL, is as follows:- "On opening of the sample packet, it was found to contain sample in form of metallic cuboids. Each is mainly composed of aluminium along with other elements i.e. Si, Fe, Cu, Mg, Mn,Ti, Zn, Ni, Pb, Sn, Cr, Be, Zr, V and Aluminium 96% and above. " 53. It is further opined that the sample does not meet the requirement for Aluminum Alloy Conductor. 54. On comparison of the report of the CRCL and Shri D.K. Jain, CE, it appeared to Revenue that the goods exported by JIJI and MSAPL cannot be called as Alloy Aluminium Conductors and further, the goods exported appeared to be inflated in value. 55. During investigation, it was seen, vide letter dated 8.10.2010 that JIJI informed the Astt. Commissioner of the Division that they are engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium Profile and section, and will manufacture a new product - Alloy of Aluminium and Silver (content of silver being 3.5%), which is known in the market as Alloy Conductors. JIJI further submitted that the said product will be used in the electronic products and its function is of heat conductor. They also requested to incorporate this new product in their registrati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ected to show cause as to why cenvat credit of Rs. 3,83,72,609/- including cess be not dis-allowed and demanded, being credit taken during October, 2010 to Jan. 2011. Proposal to impose penalty on the other appellants, to show cause as to why not penalty be imposed under Section 26 of CER. 59. Another show cause notice dated 10.04.2014 of even dated also issued by DGCEI on more or less similar allegations arising out of the same investigation. JIJI was required to show cause as to why erroneous rebate of duty on exported goods totaling Rs. 2,39,15,431/- sanctioned by the Maritime Commissioner, Central Excise, Bhopal be not demanded and recovered by invoking the extended period of limitation. It was further proposed to impose penalty under Rule 25 of CER. 60. M/s Radhe Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. was required to show cause as to why cenvat credit demand of Rs. 84,54,240/- on the allegation of credit taken without actually receipt and consumption of raw materials/inputs during the period 14th March, 2011 to 04.04.2011 by invoking the extended period of limitation with proposal to impose penalty. 61. Prerna Enterprises (as a Merchant Exporter, wherein MSAPL is the manufacturer) required to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....venue. The appellants in their reply to the show cause notice had also given a specific list of several persons praying for the cross examination. However, the cross examination was not allowed without any cogent reason, making a valid allegation on the appellants of delaying tactics, in spite of this being the second round of litigation. 69. It is further urged that the demand of cenvat credit from MSAPL is bad for Rs. 2,46,58,188/-, as the same also forms part of the cenvat credit demanded from JIJI Industries. Vice versa clearances were also made from JIJI to MSAPL and credits were availed by MSAPL, and so the demands so raised, result in double demand of the same amount. 70. Thus, the demand of cenvat credit availed plus the rebate results in total demand of Rs. 6,09,08,411/- in the hands of the JIJI Industries. 71. Admittedly, the allegation of variation in the Cenvat Register, as pointed out in the show cause notice, is in the nature of the clerical error, which has been sufficiently explained due to lack of experience on the part of new Accountant of JIJI Industries. Adverse inference is bad and fit to be set aside. Under the facts and circumstances, it is an admitted fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itiating the impugned order. 74. It is further urged that vide various orders-in-original, rebate claims were allowed after proper verification of the cenvat credit availed and thus, such orders-in-original granting rebate have attained finality, as no appeal has been preferred by the Department. Thus, dis-allowance of rebate claim in the hands of the appellants is bad and fit to be set aside. It is further urged that several inputs suppliers at Ahmedabad and Mumbai in their statements have stated that they know the appellants - JIJI Industries and MSAPL and have had their business transactions with them, which fact has been ignored by the Adjudicating Authority. 75. It is further urged that the impugned order is in gross violation of the provisions of the Section 9 D of the Central Excise Act, which provides that a statement made and signed by a person before any central excise authority, during the course of inquiry proceedings under this Act, shall be relevant for the purpose of proving any offence under this Act when the person, who made the statements is examined as a witness and the court or Adjudicating Authorities are satisfied that having regards to the circumstances of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....H) * Basudev Garg- 2013 (294) ELT 353 (Delhi) * Andaman Timber Industries 2015 (324) ELT 641 (SC) 76. It is further urged that the quantity of inputs disputed is about 4730 MTs, as per the transport norms of 10T per vehicle about 450 trucks loads are required. Whereas the Revenue have in the course of its inquiry enquired with only few transporters and drawn adverse conclusion, which is bad and fit to be set aside. It is further urged that the allegation of Revenue are not substantiated and the same are based on presumptions and assumptions. It is further urged that the contention of the appellant - JIJI that aluminium scrap imported by Ocean Impex was received in their factory, have not been found to be untrue as no other buyer of such imported aluminium scrap has been identified. 77. It is further urged that the demand of cenvat credit availed as well as rebate claim, amounts to double demand on the appellants vitiating the impugned order. It is further urged that the Revenue has not been able to dispute the quantitative data and yield percentage of the appellant with any standard input output norms or with the input output record of any other similar industry. 78. Shri ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....audulently cenvat credit through export under rebate claim, the value of the goods exported has been inflated. 85. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the appeals by the assesses and for allowing the cross objection of the Revenue. 86. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of the records, we find that the main question to be decided in these appeals is - whether JIJI/KPPL, MSAPL and RAPL are guilty for taking fraudulent credit on the basis of the forged invoices without receipt of inputs mentioned therein. Other question for consideration is whether the duty was paid on clearances for export, the refund of which has been sanctioned as export rebate is recoverable from them and whether - other appellants being director, proprietors, authorized signatory are liable for penalty under Rule 26 of CER of 2002. 87. The procurement of inputs by the appellants - JIJI and MSAPL is mainly from Ocean Impex and Prerna Enterprises. Further, Prerna Enterprises claims to have procured Aluminium Scrap from various firms /companies like Maruti Aluminium Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad, Maliwal Impex Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad, Ghanshyam Metal Udyog, Ahmedabad, Shareshwar Pvt. Ltd., Ram Dev Ent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....573 during the year 2010-2011. (5) Statements of Shri Praveen Tamhankar, Proprietor of Prerna Enterprises, in which, he, inter alia, stated that he was only a dummy proprietor and in actuality the transactions in Prerna Enterprises were conducted and controlled by Shri Gaurav Mungad and Shri Vaibhav Mungad, for which he has been promised some monetary compensation. (6) Shri Ravi Laddha, Proprietor of Ocean Impex in his statement accepted that they have issued invoices for sale of imported Aluminium Scrap to JIJI/KPPL and no goods have been actually sold under those invoices and the vehicle nos. in the invoices have been mentioned as per the instructions of Shri Gaurav Mungad or Shri Vaibhav Mungad. 88. Thus, we find that the case of Revenue is mainly based on the statements of the aforementioned persons. In spite of the categorical request for cross examination of the aforementioned persons, in the adjudication proceedings and also of some other persons connected with the investigations, who had verified the cenvat credit records and the documents of the appellants as well as the officers involved in scrutiny and sanctioning of the rebate claims. But this request of the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the raw materials /inputs through regular banking channels and no irregularity has been found on this aspect. 90. Shri Praveen Tamhankar, Proprietor of Prerna Enterprises has admitted that he has signed several invoices and shipping bills. Further, the allegation of the Revenue as regards the forgery of signature of Shri Praveen Tamhankar by others, has not been established by the process known to law. 91. Thus, in the facts of the present case, the examination of the raw materials suppliers, transporters and the proprietors of the Prerna Enterprises and Ocean Impex was essentially required as their statements are the main evidence relied upon by the Revenue. As the examination and cross examination have not been done in the course of the adjudication proceedings, in spite of this being the second round of litigation, we hold that none of the aforementioned statements can be relied upon for proving the allegations against the appellants. After discarding the statements, as aforementioned, we find that other than the bald allegations, there is no other cogent and corroborative evidences on record in support of the allegation of the Revenue. 92. We further find that the judge....