TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 770
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ief, are as follows:- The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Sponge Iron, etc. and are availing the facility of Cenvat Credit Scheme in respect of invoices/capital goods/input services used in the aforesaid manufacture in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, 2004). The Department received an information from Calcutta Service Tax Commissionerate vide their letter dated 28.07.2014 that the appellant has availed input service tax credit (ITC) on the strength of bogus invoices raised by M/s Spring Vincom Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata (M/s SVPL) during the months of January 2011 to March 2011 in contravention of Rule 2(l) and Rule 3 of CCR, 2004. Pursuant to said information that the factory premises of the appellant were visited on 0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....H/2017 dated 29.05.2017. The Appeal against the said order has been rejected vide the Order-in-Appeal, the one which has been challenged in the present appeal. 3. We have heard Shri Jitin Singhal, Advocate for the appellant and Shri Rakesh Kumar, Authorized Representative for the Department. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has mentioned that the entire case of the Department is based on the statements recorded, however, the Department has failed to make compliance of Section 9D of Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant not even was allowed to cross examine the said Sr. DGM Shri Sandeep Agarwal, Shri Saket Agarwal, Director and Shri P. K. Dey, Chief Operating Officer. It is impressed upon that the statements can are not admissibl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oned that all the grounds of defense taken by the appellant have specifically been dealt with by Commissioner (Appeals) with the respective individual findings in Para 7 of the order under challenge, there is no infirmity in those findings, appeal is accordingly prayed to be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival contentions and perusing the record, we observe and hold as follows:- (i) For most, we deal with the objection about non-compliance of Section 9D of Central Excise Act, 1944, the Section 9D reads as follows:- "Section 9D Relevancy of statements under certain circumstances. (1) A statement made and signed by a person before any Central Excise Officer of a gazetted rank during the course of any inquiry or proceedin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontained in that statement only when the person whom made the statement is examined as witness before the Court. A conjoint reading of the provisions therefore reveals that a statement made and signed by a person before the Investigation Officer during the course of any inquiry or proceedings under the Act shall be relevant for the purposes of proving the truth of the facts which it contains in case other than those covered in clause (a), only when the person who made the statement is examined as witness in the case before the court (in the present case, Adjudicating Authority). 8. The legislative scheme, therefore, is to ensure that the statement of any person which has been recorded during search and seizure operations would become rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is also recorded in the Order-in-Original. It is appellant's case that M/s SVPL has executed the aforesaid work orders during the period from December 2010 to March 2011 and there upon has raised thirteen invoices on the appellant on different dates for a total value of Rs. 19,55,61,900/- including the service tax of Rs. 1,82,61,900/- (the amount in question), the appellant has submitted the Chartered Engineer's Certificate certifying the aforesaid contention of the appellant, there is no evidence on record other than the statements which have already been held in admissible, to falsify the said Chartered Engineer's Certificate, we hold that the Adjudicating Authority below has wrongly discarded the said certificate. No other expert opinion....