TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 908
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....premises of the appellant company on 05.08.2015. It was found that purchases have been made directly or through dealer namely M/s.Hari Om Udyog and M/s.Maa Parwati Engineering & Casting against manufacturers' invoices of M/s.A.S. Infratel Pvt.Ltd., M/s.Ganesh Udyog, M/s.Ganpati Enterprises and M/s.OHM Metals and Engineering Corporation. Statements of the Manager of the appellant company Shri Krishna Murari Upadhyay, Shri Ashoke Kanti Kar and the Director Shri Shankar Lal Agarwal were recorded on various dates. Thereafter the documents were scrutinized and the department made investigation with respect to transportation of goods at the database VAHAN (hhtps://vahan.nic.in), wherein following details were found:- (a) 8 vehicles with respect to 24 invoices were found non-existent in the database. (b) In respect of 234 consignments of Pig Iron, the owners of 9 vehicles denied transportation by written communications. (c) In respect of 4 vehicles involving 7 invoices, they were found to be 'Light Goods Vehicle' on the VAHAN database. (d) Similarly in respect of 4 vehicles involving 13 invoices, they were found....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ods from 9,782 MT of raw materials. It is his submission that this point was categorically placed before the learned Commissioner, however, no findings have been given by him in this regard. It is also submitted that it is not the case of the department that the appellant company had arranged such quantum of inputs from alternate sources and also no evidence have been brought on record to support this assumption. The above facts clearly shows that the appellant has duly received all goods and rightfully taken Cenvat credit on the same, which have been duly manufactured and removed on payment of duty [which has been accepted by the department] or exported, as the case may be. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Modern Ex-Serviceman Engg. Co.P.Ltd. vs. CCE, Panchkula [2014 (304) ELT 298 (Tri.-Del.)]. 6. It was submitted that, during the course of visit by the officers of the Central Excise at the premises of the appellant, neither incriminating documents were recovered nor any shortage/excess of raw materials/finished goods were found, which clearly shows that the appellant were duly following the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idence and have to be eschewed from evidence. 8. It was submitted that, even otherwise, in their statements Sh. Krishna Murari Upadhyay (05.08.2015), Sh. Ashoke Kanti Kar (05.08.2015), Sh. Shankar Lal Agarwal (07.08.2015 & 13.08.2015), have clearly stated that they have received the goods under the cover of invoices and rightly taken the Cenvat credit. It was further submitted that, the allegations of the department that, Sh. Shankar Lal Agarwal has admitted everything in his statement, is wrong appreciation of the said statement and cannot be relied upon. The learned Advocate further submitted that statements of Sh. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Prop. of Jai Mata Di Enterprises (07.07.2014), Sh. Ajay Kumar Sharma. Prop. of M/s Hari Om Steel (15.07.2014) and Sh. Dharmavir Kumar, Director of M/s A.S. Infratel Pvt. Ltd. (19.09.2014) have been recorded by the officers of DGCEI, Jamshedpur and the statements of these persons have not been recorded by officers investigating the case of the appellant. It is submitted that no cross-examination has been allowed by the learned Commissioner, therefore, cannot be relied upon as evidence in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Wrongly entered combination of parameters; • Vehicle details are not digitized by Registering Authority; • Due to Network failure the data may not reach on National Register" It was submitted that, when there is even one possibility that, Vehicle details are not digitized by Registering Authority, then it was necessary for the department to investigate via proper channel i.e. by summoning the officers of the RTO with relevant records or taking records from RTO, which has not been done in the present case. The aforesaid evidences cannot be relied upon as evidence. With respect to the other 27 invoices, wherein department found Light Good vehicles, it is submitted that they should have also investigated from the concerned RTO, which has not been done in the present case. 12. It was further submitted that, the allegation of the department with respect to remaining invoices, further letters were issued to remaining transporters as per addresses mentioned in VAHAN database, however the same were retuned as 'insufficient address'. No evidence whatsoever has been relied upon by the department to show whether any letters are sent and more....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Cenvat Credit Rules. There is no ground to doubt that these raw materials have been used in the manufacture of finished goods and further removed on payment of duty. 15. It was submitted that, the department has not investigated at the end of the broker also, inasmuch they have also not discharged the burden of proof. It is further submitted that the department is duty bound to investigate and bring on record cogent and positive evidence, which is absent in the present case. 16. The appellant placed reliance on the following judgements to support its case:- (i) CCE, Kanpur Vs Juhi Alloys, 2013 (296) ELT 533 (Tri-Del.) (ii) CCE, Kanpur Vs Juhi Alloys, 2014 (302) ELT 487 (All.) (iii) Nidhi Metal Auto Component P. Ltd. Vs CCE, Delhi-IV, 2016 (343) ELT 576 (Tri-Del.) (iv) Ashok Sharma & Ors. Vs CCE, Raipur, 2019-TIOL-3405-CESTATDEL (v) CCE Vs Tata Motors Ltd, 2013 (294) ELT 394 (Jhar.) 17. It was further submitted that, merely deposit of money at the time of investigation would not amount to acceptance of any allegations as mentioned in the SCN. It is well settled law that, paym....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d with, the statement recorded during search and seizure operation by the Investigation Officers cannot be treated to be relevant piece of evidence on which a finding could be based by the adjudicating authority. A rational, logical and fair interpretation of procedure clearly spells out that before the statement is treated relevant and admissible under the law, the person is not only required to be present in the proceedings before the adjudicating authority but the adjudicating authority is obliged under the law to examine him and form an opinion that having regard to the circumstances of the case, the statement should be admitted in evidence in the interest of justice. Therefore, we would say that even mere recording of statement is not enough but it has to be fully conscious application of mind by the adjudicating authority that the statement is required to be admitted in the interest of justice. The rigor of this provision, therefore, could not be done away with by the adjudicating authority, if at all, it was inclined to take into consideration the statement recorded earlier during investigation by the Investigation officers. Indeed, without examination of the person as requi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e transportation of goods. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that, the department has not recorded the statements of these truck owners, however they have received the letter from them which are stereotyped and similarly worded, therefore, no reliance can be placed on them especially when no cross-examination has been allowed by the learned Adjudicating Authority. We agree with the submission of the appellant that these letters written by the truck owners cannot be relied upon inasmuch these are similarly worded which creates doubt with respect to authenticity of these letters. We further find that the crossexamination of these truck owners have also been denied by the learned Adjudicating Authority. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs CCE, Kolkata-II (supra) has held that if cross-examination is not allowed, then the said evidence cannot be relied upon. By following the aforesaid judgement, we find that the said letters cannot be relied upon as evidence. We further find that with respect to certain vehicles which were not found, the said page relied upon by the department clearly shows that one of the possibilities of vehicle not found....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terial. We agree with the said submission of the appellant, there is no evidence in the show cause notice that the appellant has procured the raw material from some other alternate source. We further find that the appellant has paid Central Excise duty of Rs. 8.94 crores approximately on its finished goods and certain goods have also been exported. We find that this clearly shows that the appellant has physically received the goods and utilized in the manufacture of its finished goods. 26. We find that the appellant have discharged its onus as required under Rule 9 of CCR, 2004 and as explained by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Vs Juhi Alloys Limited (supra). 27. It is important to note that the department has neither confronted the statements of dealers nor investigation conducted at the end of the transporters to Shri Shankar Lal Agarwal nor the employees of the appellant, which further weakens the case of the department inasmuch as that they have not put any part of the investigation to the Director and employees of the appellant. 28. The investigation conducted by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en done in the present case. The aforesaid evidences cannot be relied upon as evidence. With respect to the other 27 invoices, wherein department found Light Good vehicles, then they should have also investigated from the concerned RTO, which has not been done in the present case. 31. The allegation of the department with respect to remaining invoices, further letters were issued to remaining transporters as per addresses mentioned in VAHAN database, however the same were returned as 'insufficient address'. No evidence whatsoever has been relied upon by the department to show whether any letters are sent and moreover, the said allegations of the department proves that the data present on VAHAN website is not reliable and had to be verified from concerned RTO. The department is not disputing that these transporters were truck owners. Denial of Cenvat credit mechanically is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 32. The department is alleging the non-existence of premises of manufacturer/dealers, relying solely upon the alert circulars issued by the different Commissionerates. In the present case, the department has neither relied upon nor stated in the SCN about the P....