TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1275
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Dealer/Manufacture 1 Amaya Steel Pvt. Ltd., Bankura 2 Electrosteel Steels Ltd., Bokaro 3 Maa Chhinnmastika Cement &IspatPvt. Ltd., Ramgarh 4 Purulia Metal Casting Private Ltd, Purulia 5 Renu Raj Enterprises, Bokaro 6 Shree Ram Alloys & Ingots Pvt Ltd., Balidh 7 Sidhi Vinayak Steel, Bokaro 8 SupershaktiMetaliksPvt. Ltd., Durgapur 9 Tayo Rolls Limited, Jamshedpur 10 Usha Martin Limited, Saraikela 11 Allied India Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. Giridih 12 Bhardwaj Steels (P) Ltd., Giridh 13 Gaurishankar Electro Castings (P) Ltd. 14 Sidhi Vinayak Metal and Salt Co. Pvt. Ltd., Bokaro 15 Sri Langta Baba Steels (P) Ltd. Giridh 2. On the basis of the information received from the Anti Evasion Branch, Jaipur, a follow up investigation was conducted against the appellants by the Anti Evasion Branch Jodhpur. On the basis of statement of Authorized signatory/directors of suppliers of M/s Ridhi Sidhi Enterprises, Jaipur, it was assumed that M/s Ridhi Sidhi Enterprises, Jaipur has not received any goods from its suppliers and question does not arise of supply of the same to its recipients and the SCN was issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s no shortage of raw material nor it was alleged, no allegation or finding of procuring equal raw material from open market without invoices; no allegation of pay back received in cash from M/s Ridhi Sidhi. * The statements of various persons, the sole base of the matter, are not corroborated by any documentary evidence or otherwise. * Takhat Raj Sahu, Director of the appellant in his statements dated 22.06.2021 and 09.07.2021 (Annexure-C to Appeal) categorically stated that the appellant received all the goods in question and payment thereof was made through cheques only. * Statements dated 06.06.2018 (Annexure-D to Appeal) of Shri Suraj Kumar Singh, the authorized signatory of M/s Renu Raj Enterprises (who supplied 93% of goods in question to M/s Ridhi Sidhi) categorically admitted that he allowed Shri Nikhit Mittal to operate M/s. Renu Raj Enterprises since August 2016 and the adjudicating authority also admitted the same at para 22.1(vi) of the impugned order. * Scrap originated from manufacturer M/s Tata Steel Ltd:- 85.58% of goods were originated from M/s Tata Steel Ltd., however, nothing was investigated at the end of M/s Tata Steel. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reported as 2017 (346) ELT 308 (Tri.-Chan.) (vii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore Vs. Mittal Appliances Ltd. Reported as 2017 (345) ELT 283 (Tri.-Del.) (viii) Tirupati Plastomatics Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Jaipur reported as 2016 (335) ELT 482 (Tri.-Del.) (ix) Nidhi Metal Auto Components P. Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of C. Ex., Delhi - IV reported as 2016 (343) ELT 576 (Tri.-Del.) (x) Jyoti Industreis Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. & S.T., Ludhiana reported as 2016 (343) ELT 690 (Tri.-Del.) (xi) STI Industries Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. & S.T., Vapi reported as 2015 (325) ELT 910 (Tri.-Ahmd.) * Therefore, when the appellant received the inputs, used the same in manufacturing of excisable goods cleared on payment of proper CE duty, no shortage of raw material was found in the factory premises of the appellant, statements of any persons has not been corroborated by any evidence documentary or otherwise to prove allegation in the SCN, recovery of Cenvat credit cannot be made. * Demand badly hit by limitation - The present demand pertains to Financial Year 2016-17 and 2017-18 (upto June 2017) and the Show Cause Notice has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Accounts of M/s. Ridhi Sidhi were not genuine. However, the second link in the chain of evidence, which had to indicate that the goods in turn were not supplied to appellants by M/s. Ridhi Sidhi is missing in investigation of the department. As against this, the appellants have produced various documentary evidences including transport receipts, proof of payments, proof of receipt of such goods in their premises and their output indicating that the goods were actually received as per accounts. They even have correctly argued that the denial of any cross examination of the testimonial evidences of third parties who stated that they did not supply raw material to M/s. Ridhi Sidhi, despite their request and reliance still having been placed by the department on such statements, makes the findings improper. They particularly relied upon on the case of Nidhi Auto Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida-I reported as 2020 (33) GSTL 419 (Tri.-All.) as being most akin in facts to their own situation and therefore the ratio in that case on the main point deserves to be accepted and followed. They emphasized that both the links in chain of evidence were not investigated prop....