TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1134
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Pellets. During investigation it came to notice that the appellant alongwith one Shri Pradeep Kumar Agrawal had supplied the Bazar Scrap / Kabadi Scrap to M/s GPIL and even to various other manufacturers of Iron & Steel including M/s High Tides Infra Projects Ltd, Dhanbad, M/s Jetking Trading & Agency Pvt. Ltd. Raipur, M/s RMS Steel and company Raipur, M/s Shubh Multi Trade company, Raipur. These firms were found to be non-existant and were found to have taken and utilized huge amount of Cenvat Credit without manufacturing any goods during the year 2012-13 and 2013-14. M/s GPIL is also one of such manufactures who were found to have availed illegal Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 22,73,091/- during the impunged period of dispute on the strength of fake Cenvatable Invoices issued by the co-noticee no. 3 of the show cause notice. The remaining co-noticees no. 2 to 12 including appellant were found actively involved, with full knowledge, abetting with M/s GIPL in improperly availing the aforesaid Cenvat Credit. 1.2 With these observations the Show Cause Notice No. 110/2015-16 dated 18.08.2017 was served upon M/s GIPL along with 13 co-noticees including appellant proposing recovery o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner - 2021 (7) TMI 1307 - CESTAT Mumbai (f) P.B. Vyas v. Commissioner - 2021 (378) E.L.T. 177 (Tri. Mum.) (g) Sasthi Charan Banerjee v. Commissioner - Final Order No. 75578/2022, dated 14.12.2022 by CESTAT Kolkata (h) Manjeet Kaur Bansal v. Commissioner - 2022 (56) G.S.T.L 295 (Tri. Del.) 3.3 Learned counsel further submitted that M/s Godawari Power Ispat Ltd have taken CENVAT credit on the invoices of M/s Jetking Trading & Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Raipur, M/s RMS Steel Tech & Co., M/s S.R. Metallics, M/s Yes Commtrade etc., as per show cause notice. However, there is no iota of evidence on record to prove that the appellant had issued those invoices or had abetted in making those invoices. This makes it clear that the impugned show cause notice is issued mechanically and without application of mind as far as appellant is concerned. 3.4 It is also submitted that statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are not admissible if the procedure laid down under Section 9D of the said Act is not followed. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhatisgarh in the case of Hi-Tech Abrasives Ltd. Vs. CCE&C, Raipur, 2018 (362) ELT 961 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n. The appellant was impleded as co-noticee based on the statement of Pradeep Kumar Agrawal the co-notice no. 11. Apparently, the request of the appellant to cross examine said Pradeep Kumar Agrawal was declined. It is the settled position of law that statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act cannot be relied upon as evidence without following the rigor of Section 9D of the Act. It has been further held that the provisions of Section 9D is mandatory in nature. The Hon'ble High Court of Chattisgarh in Hi-Tech Abrasives Ltd. (Supra) held as under: - "9.5 Undoubtedly, the proceedings are quasi criminal in nature because it results in imposition of not only of duty but also of penalty and in many cases, it may also lead to prosecution. The provisions contained in Section 9D, therefore, has to be construed strictly and held as mandatory and not mere directory. Therefore, unless the substantive provisions contained in Section 9D are complied with, the statement recorded during search and seizure operation by the Investigation Officers cannot be treated to be relevant piece of evidence on which a finding could be based by the adjudicating authority. A rational, logi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....67(P&H) and Hon'ble CESTAT, New Delhi in the case of CCE, Delhi-I Vs. Kuber Tobacco India Ltd., reported as, 2016 (338) ELT 113 (Tri- Del.) and Elora Tobacco Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Indore, reported as 2017 (347) ELT 614 (Tri-Del.). 5.4 I observe that in the present case the appellant had prayed for cross-examination of Shri Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, however, the same was not allowed. Hence, no reliance can be placed on such statement in view of the above mentioned decisions and also in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE, Kolkata-II, reported as, 2015 (324) ELT 641 (SC) followed by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CCE Vs Kurele Pan Products, 2014 (307) ELT 42 (All.). 5.5 From the statement of the appellant dated 11.05.2016 it was found even by Commissioner (Appeals) (Para 15 of O-I-A) that the appellant has deposed about being involved in supply of Bazar Scrap but to M/s Prakash Industry Ltd. only and he had not supplied Bazar Scrap to any other unit. Just because the subsequent testimony about supplying Bazar Scrap to M/s Raghubir Concast Pvt. Ltd. Raipur, was acknowledged by the appellant, He c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant has placed reliance in the case of Z.U. Alvi vs. CCE, 2000 (117) ELT 69 (Tri.), Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. vs. CCE, 2002 (143) ELT 682 (Tri.) and in the case of Kamdeep Marketing vs Collector of Customs, Delhi reported in 1999 (110) E.L.T. 696 (Tribunal). Hence it is held that penalty is wrongly imposed on the appellant. 5.8 It is also an apparent and admitted fact that the main noticee M/s GIPL, the company has got settled the dispute under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS). The law has been settled that once the demand against the company stands settled, no question arises of imposition of penalty either on its director or on its raw material suppliers. We draw our support from the decision of this tribunal in the case titled as VK Agrawal vs. Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise reported as 2024 (15) Centax 220. It also apparent on record that appellant also applied under SVLDRS but his request was rejected holding it premature, being prior the final decision on settlement request of main noticee., M/s GIPL. As already observed above, the main notices M/s GIPL has already been issued the discharge certificate, the co n....