TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1689
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs.2,44,253/- and imposition of penalty of Rs.2,44,253/- under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 [CCR, 2004] read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 [CEA, 1944]. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the Appellant is engaged in manufacture and clearance of angle, shapes, sections of iron or non-alloy steel etc. The Appellant is also availing the facility of Cenvat credit in respect of inputs, capital goods and input services. M/s Shiv Metalicks, Jamshedpur is one of the raw material suppliers of the Appellant. The Department issued the Show Cause Notice [SCN] on the ground that the investigation was conducted by the Officers of DGCEI, Jamshedpur and on scrutiny of RG23D register of M/s Shiv ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isions in support of his submissions:- • Commissioner of C.Ex., Customs & Service Tax Vs. Juhi Alloys Ltd. reported as 2014 (302) E.L.T. 487 (All.). • Commissioner of C.Ex., East Singhbhum Vs. Tata Motors Ltd. - 2013 (294) E.L.T. 394 (Jhar.). • G.S. Alloy Castings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Guntur- 2016 (331) E.L.T. 310 (Tri.-Bang.). • Nidhi Metals Auto Components P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Delhi-IV -2016 (343) E.L.T. 576 (Tri.-Del.). • Madhura Ingots & Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of CGST & CX, Ranchi -2022 (380) E.L.T. 334 (Tri.-Cal). 5. Apart from the above submissions, the learned counsel also submitted that the whole demand was barred by limitation. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd after going through the impugned orders including the order of the Tribunal vide which the matter was remanded, I find that the entire case of the Revenue is based upon the statements of the authorized representatives of M/s. Usha Enterprises and M/s. Sree Tirumala Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Apart from that, there is not even an iota of evidence on record to show that the appellant has not actually received the inputs in question. Even the said statements have not been tested about their correctness by granting cross-examination. There is no inculpatory statement of the present appellant and on the contrary, the appellant's representative, has clarified, in the statement recorded during the investigation that the inputs were actually ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erials in question, how have they manufactured the corresponding final products. It is not the Revenue's case that they have procured the raw material from any other alternative source. It is not only inpractical but impossible to manufacture the final product without raw material in question. The appellants having reflected the raw material in their Cenvat credit account and having shown the utilization of the same, heavy duty stands cast on the Revenue to establish that such raw material was not the one which was covered by invoice in question and stands procured by the assessee from any other source. There is neither any allegation much less any evidence to reflect upon the procurement of raw material from any outside source." The sam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f demand. In the present case cross-examination of none of the prosecution witnesses were allowed. Therefore, following the ruling by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, we hold that none of the statements were admissible evidence in the present case. We, further, note that it is settled law that if the author of a diary is not identified and his statement is not recorded then such diary is not admissible evidence. In the present case, we find that the author of the diary recovered at the residence of the partner of M/s. Ruby Steels was not identified and his statement was not recorded and therefore, the diary recovered was not admissible evidence. Further, we also note that it was alleged that M/s. Nidhi Auto was maintaining parallel ledgers whe....