TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 299
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l & Company, Vill. Tenduwa, Raipur, M/s. Subh Multi Trade Co., MG Road Raipur etc. to be not in existence but were found to have taken and utilized huge amount of cenvat credit without manufacturing any goods during the year 2012-13 7 2013-14. During investigation about the aforesaid information, Department observed that some non-existing firms of Dhanbagh acting a manufacturer, some first stage dealers and some second stage dealers of Chattisgarh had created a fraudulent Cenvat Credit passing chain to facilitate availment of Cenvat Credit without actual manufacture and supply of duty paid goods to some manufacturers of Chattisgarh. M/s. FML, the appellant was observed to be included among these firms. On the basis of the evidences gathered by enquiry and investigations conducted by the DGCI and by Central Excise Officers of Dhanbagh as well as of Raipur, Department alleged that during the period 2013-14 the appellant, one of the manufacturer, had availed improper Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 21,46,418/-on the strength of fake invoices issued by registered dealers as named above i.e. M/s. High Tides Infra Products Pvt. Ltd. etc. Based on said observations that a show cause notice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra 11 of the order under challenge where there is a categorical finding that appellant has availed irregular & improper Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 21,46,418/- during the disputed period i.e.2013-14, on contravention of provisions of Rule 2, 4, 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules. Suppression of facts has also been specifically alleged against the appellant. Learned D.R. has further impressed upon that the mastermind behind the modus-operandi of availing illegal Cenvat Credit Shri Pradeep Aggarwal has also been penalized who has not come forward to file the appeal which again is sufficient to hold that there was a nexus among various manufacturers, dealers, raw-material suppliers and the transporters as mentioned in the Show Cause Notice to cause heavy loss to the Exchequer by availing wrong Cenvat Credit on bogus invoices issued by non-existent firms. With these submissions, appeal in hand is prayed to be dismissed. 6. After hearing the parties and perusing the record, I observe the hold as follows:- The basic information as was received by the Department was against M/s. High Tides Infra Pvt. Ltd. Various other co-noticees have been served with the Show Cause Notice based upon the stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the statement should be admitted in evidence in the interests of justice. ( 2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to any proceeding under this Act, other than a proceeding before a Court, as they apply in relation to a proceeding before a Court. 7. Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of M/s. Ambika International (supra) and also in the case of G-tech Industries vs. Union of India reported as 2016 (339) E.L.T 209 (P & H) has held that unless a person is examined in terms of section 9D and unless the affected parties is given an opportunity to cross-examine him, no reliance can be placed on any statement recorded under Section 14 of Central Excise Act. In that case also the entire demand was based on third party investigation and statement given by the third party. No single document was found issued by the appellant nor there was a confessional statement of the appellant. In the present case, the Adjudicating Authority is thus, opined to have relied upon third party evidence only. It is also apparent that even the order of rejecting the request of cross-examination was no properly communicated to the appellant. Since ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iculars from the regular transporters. (iv) To find out the realization of sale proceeds. (v) To find out finished product receipt details from regular dealers/buyers. (vi) To find out the excess power consumptions. 13. Thus, to prove the allegation of clandestine sale, further corroborative evidence is also required. For this purpose no investigation was conducted by the Department." 7. I further observed that the document recovered from the appellant premises shows that the appellant had maintained a record about the invoices received from various companies whereupon the appellant has availed the Cenvat Credit. Merely because the company issuing invoice was found non-existent, the appellant could not be denied the availment of Cenvat Credit thereupon unless and until his involvement in terms of his knowledge about such non-existence and about the invoice to be bogus is not proved on record. Otherwise also there is no denial that the appellant has cleared his final product on payment of duty. In such circumstances and that the invoices were containing all the particulars as are required un Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules and that the appellant was also making the record....