TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 438
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ound in the factory premises. During investigation, statement of the proprietor who had passed on the Cenvat credit to M/s R.N. Metals on the basis of the invoices but allegedly without supplying the goods were recorded with the cogent admission that the goods covered under those invoices were never received in their premises. 1.2 The investigation revealed that the appellant have fraudulently availed and utilized Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 8,75,489/- during the period from 26.09.2014 to 19.12.2014. Alleging that the appellant have contravened the provision of Rules 3, 4 and 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Rules 4, 6, 8 and 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 that a Show Cause Notice (hereinafter referred as SCN) bearing No. 10/2019 dated 12.09.2019 was served upon the appellant proposing the recovery of aforesaid amount of Cenvat Credit of Rs. 8,75,489/-. Proportionate interest and the appropriate penalties under Cenvat Credit Rules 15(2) and Central Excise Rules 25 were proposed to be imposed. The proposal was confirmed vide Order-in-Original no. 04/2020-21 dated 3.02.2021. Appeal against the said order has been dismissed vide the impugned order in appeal. Being aggr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... A.K. Sons and M/s. Hari Om Udyog are the sufficient evidence to prove that no goods were actually received by the appellant. The transport and the payment records were found fabricated which is a deliberate attempt to conceal the fraud. During investigation, it was found that there was no manufacturing activity / facility at the registered premises of the appellant. This corroborates that the appellant was passing Cenvat Credit fraudulently through fake invoices. The whole arrangements is rightly held to be a paper transaction without actual transfer of goods. Due to the proven fraudulent activity the show cause notice has rightly invoked the extended period. Impressing upon no infirmity in the order under challenge, the appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 5. Having heard both the parties and perusing the entire records, we observe that the show cause notice as well the adjudication orders are mainly relying upon the statements as were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, it is the statutory requirement for any statements to be relevant for the proceedings that it should follow the procedures prescribed under section 9D of Central Excise Act, 1944. We have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of admissibility to oral evidence they would, even otherwise, have to be recorded as mandatory. 8. The rationale behind the above precaution contained in clause (b) of Section 9D(1) is obvious. The statement, recorded during inquiry / investigation, by the Gazetted Central Excise Officer, has every chance of having been recorded under coercion or compulsion. It is a matter of common knowledge that, on many occasions, the DRI / DGCEI resorts to compulsion in order to extract confessional statements. It is obviously in order to neutralize this possibility that, before admitting such a statement in evidence, clause (b) of Section 9D(1) mandates that the evidence of the witness has to be recorded before the adjudicating authority, as, in on the part of the witness concerned. 9. Clearly, therefore, the stage of relevance in adjudication proceedings, of the statement, recorded before a Gazetted Central Excise Officer during inquiry or investigation, would arise only after the statement is admitted in evidence in accordance with the procedure prescribed in clause (b) of Section 9D(1). The rigour of this procedure is exempted only in a case in which one or more of the handicaps referred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 38 / 30.10.20 14 5 156 17.11.2 014 MS Bar 21.4 1 770760 95266 RJ05- GA- 41 / 17.11.20 14 5048 6 160 18.11.2 014 MS Bar 24.3 6 876960 108392 RJ05- GA- 5487 42 / 18.11.20 14 7 162 18.11.2 014 MS Bar 28.1 0 101160 0 125034 RJ05- GA- 0424 43 / 18.11.20 14 8 214 19.12.2 014 MS Bar 28.1 0 101160 0 125034 RJ11- GA- 3384 47 / 19.12.20 14 Total 197 .69 70832 29 875489 RJ05- GA- 5027 13. There is nothing on record to falsify the contents of the invoices and the RG Register. Both these documents reveal the details of the vehicle which were used for the delivery of the goods from M/s A.K. Sons to M/s R.N. Metals the appellant. The invoices also prove the sufficient compliance of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004 which enables appellants to take Cenvat Credit on the strength of the invoices where duty paid on the goods is also specifically mentioned. We draw our support from the decision in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex., East Singhbhum Vs. Tata Motors Ltd. - 2013 (294) E.L.T. 394 (Jhar.) was held as follows: - "...Once a buyer of inputs receives i....