TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 609
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led during the period from June, 2011 to August, 2014 and imposed a penalty of Rs.3,44,11,544/- under Rule 15(2) ibid., besides imposing a penalty of Rs.1,00,00,000/- on Shri Sunil Bansal under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 15(2) of the said rules. 1.1. Excise Appeal No. 75493 of 2019 has been filed by M/s. Globe Steel & Alloys Private Limited against the Order-in-Appeal No. 490/RAN/2018 dated 14.11.2018 wherein the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the disallowance of CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs.18,29,488/- for the period from April, 2014 to March, 2015 as well as the imposition of penalty of Rs.18,29,488/- under Rule 15(2) / 15(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. As the issue involved is common in all these appeals, they are taken up together for disposal by way of a common order. 3. The facts of the case are that M/s. Globe Steel & Alloys Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the appellant/company)is is engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots (Chapter 72), for which raw materials such as Sponge Iron, Pig Iron, C.I. Scrap, M.S. Scrap, Iron and Steel Scrap (like Pooled Iron),....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....own of Ajay Singh, Ghorabanda, Jamshedpur Kr. (AADFL2549NED001); (ii) M/s. Jai Mata Di Enterprises, Block No.04, Ward No.2, 1B, Gopal Marg, Shastrinagar, Kadma, Jamshedpur (CIBPS1382JED002), on 04.07.2014; (iii) M/s.Chakradhari Metal Co., Ward No.7, Khata No. 34, Plot No. 554, Marawaripara Road, Jugsalai, Jamshedpur (AAGFC9964KED001); (iv) M/s. Bajrang Steel Coal & Coke Traders, Plot No. 1183,NH-33 Dimna Road near DVC Power House Mango, Jamshedpur (AQWPP1814FXD001); (v) M/s. Hari Om Steel, H. No.9. Road No.11. Daiguttu, Mango, Jamshedpur (CIBPS1382JED001), on 08-07-2014; (vi) M/s. Shiv Metalicks, a proprietorship firm, Bajpayee Complex, Jugsalai, Jamshedpur (ABOPN9626LED001) which was earlier registered as Partnership Firm (ABOFS5031NXD001), on dated 15-07-2014 7. In the course of investigation, statements of the following persons were recorded under Section 14 of the Act: - (a) Mr. Nitesh Pandey, Proprietor of M/s Bajrang Steel Coal & Coke Traders and Partner of M/s Chakradhari Metal Company, (b) Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Proprietor of M/s Jai Mata Di Enterprises and M/s Hari Om Steel, (c) Mr. Satish Pandey, Proprietor of M/s Bajrang Steel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sport the impugned goods. Accordingly, it was alleged that the appellant has taken CENVAT Credit on the basis of fake invoices without actual receipt of goods. 10.1. The appellant submitted its reply vide letters dated 12.09.2018 and 31.12.2016, thereby disputing and denying the allegations levelled 10.2. On adjudication, the Ld. Principal Commissioner, C.G.S.T., Central Excise and Service Tax, Ranchi vide the Order-in-Original dated 28.09.2018 has confirmed the disallowance of CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs.3,44,11,544/- (Rupees Three Crore Forty Four Lakh Eleven Thousand Five Hundred and Forty Four only) under Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 availed by the appellant-company during the period from June, 2011 to August, 2014, along with interest, and imposed a penalty equivalent to the amount of CENVAT Credit disallowed, under Rule 15(2) ibid. A personal penalty of Rs.1,00,00,000/- was also imposed on Shri Sunil Bansal, amongst others, under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 15(2) of the said rules. 10.3. Aggrieved by the above disallowance of credit, along with interest and penalties thereon, Excise Appeal Nos. 75485 and 75486 of 2019 have ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso the case of the appellant that the investigation officers did not conduct any enquiry with the person dealing with purchase and maintaining inventory at the appellant's factory; no enquiry was made with security staff posted at the factory gate of the appellant; no investigation was also made with the weighbridge operator of the appellant's factory. 12.3. Furthermore, the appellant has submitted in this regard that the investigation was selectively conducted at the transporter's end. On a test check basis, 21 invoices involving CENVAT Credit of Rs.15,99,466.13 (out of the total disputed credit of Rs.3,44,11,544/-) i.e., 4.6%, were randomly picked up and the vehicle registration numbers appearing on those invoices were verified from online portal; it purportedly emerged that all these 21 vehicle numbers pertain to L.M.V. which could not be used to transport the impugned goods. In respect of rest of the invoices involving CENVAT Credit of Rs.3,28,12,077.87, it is stated that there is no allegation that those were pertaining to cases of L.M.V; resultantly, it has been alleged that the appellant has taken CENVAT Credit on the basis of fake invoices without actual rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er banking channel. These facts are not in dispute. (iv) They have maintained proper records of receipt, disposal, consumption and inventory of inputs in accordance with Rule 9(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. [Raw materials Inventory, RG-23A-Part-I, RG-23A-Part-II] (v) There is no tangible, cogent, corroborative evidence to prove non-receipt of goods by the Appellant. (vi) In the instant case, it is undisputed that- • All "Central Excise dealers" are registered under Central Excise Rules, 2002 and their registration were valid and active during the material period • Purchase are covered under Excise Invoices evidencing supply of impugned goods to the appellant; • Quantity of impugned goods received are recorded in RG-23A-Part-I; • Entry Book of Duty Credit (RG-23A-Part-II) along with ER-1 returns; • Payment made to Suppliers through proper banking channel; • The consumption of the impugned goods in the manufacture of final product (MS Ingot) is not disputed and payment duty on clearance of such final product is accepted by the Department without any demur; • Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., and M/s Yazdani Steel & Power Ltd.). No investigation was conducted with seven manufacturers, nor were any summon was issued or statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (xiii) In respect of wrong availment of CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs.18,22,648.00/- on Inputs purchased from M/s. Shree Balajee Enterprises during the period from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015, the said Central Excise dealer namely, was not made a co-Noticee and no penalty has been proposed against him; no contravention has also been alleged therein against the supplying dealer. (xiv) In the case of Hindustan Engineering & Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 2025-VIL-702-CESTAT-CE, it has been held by this Tribunal that the registration have been issued by the department at the given address, and the traders/manufacturers did not exist, only fake invoices have been issued. Under the circumstances, the assessee has correctly availed credit on the strength of invoices and denial of CENVAT Credit is not sustainable. (xv) The simple letters by the seven manufacturers stating that they have not sold goods, the Central Excise dealers have been accepted as true and conc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y picked, and hold that the said goods were transported by Motor Cycles etc., which is practically not possible. It is submitted that the said invoices constitute just 4.6% of total CENVAT Credit of Rs.3,44,11,544/-. (xxi) In the case of Gurparlad Singh Vs. DFO reported in AIR 1998 ORI 177 and Rajkumar Gond Vs. State of MP in M.C.V.C. No.12506 of 2017, it was found that many transporters are using fake number plates for transportation of goods. Therefore, fake number plates does not conclusively proves non-transportation of goods. It may give rise to doubts or suspicion. (xxii) It is fairly well settled that suspicion however great cannot replace legal proof and tax can be demanded on suspicion or doubt. (xxiii) In the instant case, the burden of proof of non-receipt of the impugned goods by the Appellant is on the department which the department has failed to discharge. It is submitted that RG-23A Part-I & RG-23A Part-II are substantive piece of evidence which must be disproved by sufficient corroborative evidence. (xxiv) It is further submitted that no CENVAT can be disallowed on sample basis without testing the merit of each transactions on it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ended period of limitation. The appellants rely on the following judgments:- • Sara Bhai M. Chemicals Vs. CCE reported in 2005 (179) ELT 3(SC); • Vandana Global Ltd. Vs. CCE, reported in 2022 (12) TMI 450-CESTAT New Delhi. 14.1. In view of the above submissions, the Ld. Counsel for the appellants have prayed for setting aside the impugned orders as being untenable and arbitrary and for allowing their appeals, with consequential reliefs. 15. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorized Representatives of the Revenue appearing before us have reiterated the findings of the lower authorities in the orders impugned herein. It is his submission that CENVAT Credit has been availed by the appellant-company on the basis of invoices issued by non-existent dealers. Thus, all the goods said to have been supplied by the said dealers were only paper transactions in the name of those non-existent central excise dealers; statements recorded from 21 transporters categorically revealed that no such transportation of inputs to the factory of the appellant company took place. Accordingly, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue contends that the CENVAT Credit availed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s appearing on those invoices were verified from online portal. It purportedly emerged that all these 21 vehicle numbers pertain to L.M.V. which could not be used to transport the impugned goods. We find that in respect of rest of the invoices involving CENVAT Credit of Rs.3,28,12,077.87, there is no allegation that those were pertaining to cases of L.M.V. Resultantly, it was alleged that the appellant has taken CENVAT Credit on the basis of fake invoices without actual receipt of goods. However, we find that there is no corroborative evidence brought on record by the investigation to substantiate these allegations. 17.4. It is also observed that the entire case has been made on the basis of the statements recorded from 15 persons, without there being any corroborative evidence. Since these oral statements have not been tested in terms of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, we are of the opinion that these statements cannot be treated as admissible evidence and are, therefore, irrelevant. We also note that the appellants vide their letters dated 01-08-2016 and 31-12-2016 had demanded cross examination of all the witnesses whose statements are relied upon in support of the char....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Section 9D(1) takes care of a situation where the witness who is deposing before the adjudicating authority turns hostile and on an evaluation of the circumstances of the case the adjudicating authority decides to discard the version given by the witness before it and instead place reliance on the earlier statement given before the Gazetted Officer. As elucidated supra, this also applies in a case where the witness deposing stands by his earlier statement and is thereafter offered for cross-examination to the opposite side and in case of minor inconsistencies/no inconsistency, if the adjudicating authority is of the opinion, having regard to the circumstances of the case that the statement should be admitted in evidence in the interests of justice, the adjudicating authority can do so as per this Section 9D(1)(b). 59. However, implicit in this procedure stipulated in 9D(1)(b) is the necessary requirement for the adjudicating authority to depose all the deponents who have given statement under Section 14, save as those that are unavailable in the scenarios given in 9D(1)(a), for the purposes of evaluating whether the statements are voluntary, to attest that he had depos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... interpretation would hold good under the parimateria provisions of Customs Act as well." 17.6. The above issue has also been examined by the Principal bench, CESTAT, New Delhi, in the case of M/s. Surya Wires Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner, C.G.S.T., Raipur vide Final Order Nos. 50453-50454 of 2025 dated 01.04.2025 in Excise Appeal No. 51148 of 2020 [CESTAT, New Delhi], wherein the Tribunal has observed as under: "22. It would now be appropriate to examine certain decisions interpretating section 9D of the Central Excise Act and section 138B of the Customs Act. 23. In Ambika International vs. Union of India [2018 (361) E.L.T. 90 (P&H)] decided on 17.06.2016, the Punjab and Haryana High Court examined the provisions of section 9D of the Central Excise Act. The show cause notices that had been issued primarily relied upon statements made under section 14 of the Central Excise Act. It was sought to be contended by the Writ Petitioners that the demand had been confirmed in flagrant violation of the mandatory provisions of section 9D of the Central Excise Act. The High Court held that ifnone of the circumstances contemplated by clause (a) of section 9D(1) exi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (i) the person who made the statement has to first be examined as a witness in the case before the adjudicating authority, and (ii) the adjudicating authority has, thereafter, to form the opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the statement should be admitted in evidence in the interests of justice. 23. There is no justification for jettisoning this procedure, statutorily prescribed by plenary parliamentary legislation for admitting, into evidence, a statement recorded before the gazetted Central Excise Officer, which does not suffer from the handicaps contemplated by clause (a) of Section 9D(1) of the Act. The use of the word "shall" in Section 90(1), makes it clear that, the provisions contemplated in the sub-section are mandatory. Indeed, as they pertain to conferment of admissibility to oral evidence they would, even otherwise, have to be recorded as mandatory. 24. 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see, for cross-examination, can arise. 28. Clearly, if this procedure, which is statutorily prescribed by plenary parliamentary legislation, is not followed, it has to be regarded, that the Revenue has given up the said witnesses, so that the reliance by the CCE, on the said statements, has to be regarded as misguided, and the said statements have to be eschewed from consideration, as they would not be relevant for proving the truth of the contents thereof." (emphasis supplied) 24. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jindal Drugs that was decided on 21.06.2016 also held that unless and until one of the circumstances contemplated by clause (a) of section 1388(1) of the Customs Act applies, the adjudicating authority is bound to strictly follow the procedure contained in clause (b) of section 138B(1) of the Customs Act, before treating a statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act as relevant. 25 In Hi Tech Abrasives Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. & Cus., Raipur [2018 (362) E.LT. 961 (Chhattisgarh)] decided on 04.07.2018, the Chhattisgarh High Court also examined the provisions of section 9D of the Central Excise Act. The allegation a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on which a finding could be based by the adjudicating authority. A rational, logical and fair interpretation of procedure dearly spells out that before the statement is treated relevant and admissible under the law, the person is not only required to be present in the proceedings before the adjudicating authority adjudicating authority is obliged under the law to examine him and form an opinion that having regard to the circumstances of the case, the statement should be admitted in evidence in the interest of justice. Therefore, we would say that even mere recording of statement is not enough but it has to be fully conscious application of mind by the adjudicating authority that the statement is required to be admitted in the interest of justice. The rigor of this provision, therefore, could not be done away with by the adjudicating authority, if at all, it was inclined to take into consideration the statement recorded earlier during investigation by the Investigation officers. Indeed, without examination of the person as required under Section 9D and opinion formed as mandated under the law, the statement recorded by the Investigation Officer would not constitute the relevant and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 77. The framers of the law having, thus, subjected statements, recorded under Section 108 of the Act, to such a searching and detailed procedure, before they are treated as relevant in adjudication proceedings, we are of the firm view that such statements, which are yet to suffer such processuall filtering, cannot be used, straightaway, to oppose a request for provisional release of seized goods. The reliance, in the appeal before us, on various statements recorded during the course of investigation in the present case cannot, therefore, in our view, invalidate the decision, of the Learned Tribunal, to allow provisional release of the seized 25400.06 grams of gold jewellery, covered by Bill of Entry No. 107190, dated 20th April, 2019." (emphasis supplied) 27. In Drolia Electrosteel decided on 30.10.2023, a Division Bench of the Tribunal examined the provisions of section 9D of the Central Excise Act and after placing reliance upon the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jindal Drugs, observed that if the mandatory provisions of section 9D(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act are not followed, the statements cannot be used as evidence in proceedings under Centr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mean that no reliance can be placed on the statements recorded either under section 14D of the Central Excise Act or under section 108 of the Customs Act. The Courts have also explained the rationale behind the precautions contained in the two sections. It has been observed that the statements recorded during inquiry/investigation by officers has every chance of being recorded under coercion or compulsion and it is in order to neutralize this possibility that statements of the witnesses have to be recorded before the adjudicating authority, after which such statements can be admitted in evidence." 17.7. Thus, by relying on the decisions cited supra, we are of the opinion that as the statements relied upon in this case have not been tested as mandated under section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, therefore, these statements cannot be treated as admissible evidence in these proceedings. 18. We observe that the other evidence relied upon by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order is the statements of the transporters. In this regard, we find that the investigation has selectively taken 21 invoices involving CENVAT Credit of Rs.15,99,466.13 (out of the total disputed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... only.If Annexures RTO & V of Relied upon Documents to the Show Cause Notice are carefully examined, it would be seen that there are references to trucks and heavy goods vehicles. It follows that it cannot be stated that all the vehicles which were shown to have transported the disputed inputs were incapable of carrying waste and scrap. At paragraph no. 4.31 at page no. 261 of the order under challenge, the ld. adjudicating authority made sweeping observations regarding physical movement of goods without sufficient proof. Further, we observe that summons had been issued to 226 vehicle owners and out of six, only four had turned up who failed to provide evidence of transportation. On appreciation and re-appreciation of the evidences on record, we disagree with the findings recorded at paragraph no. 4.31, page no. 261 of the impugned order. 21.1. Furthermore, we find that out of more than 1600 consignments, there were 5 cases where the motor vehicle registration number mentioned in the documents was not in respect of goods transport vehicles. The appellant-company had explained that the goods were duly received in its factory and such receipt cannot be questioned merely beca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which were cleared against the payment of duty. On enquiry by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Bolpur, it was found that the original manufacturer of MS Ingots, namely Sarla Ispat (P) Ltd., Durgapur, was non-existent. The assessee availed of the Cenvat credit on the strength of invoices which were issued by M/s. MK Steels (P) Ltd., which was the first stage dealer. A notice to show cause was issued to the assessee which resulted in an order of adjudication confirming a demand of duty under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 2004') read with Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944. A personal penalty was imposed on the Director of the assessee as also the Authorized Signatory of the assessee. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Kanpur held that in terms of the provisions of Rule 7(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 2002') read with Rule 9(5) of the Rules of 2004, a manufacturer is required to check the particulars as mentioned in the invoices issued by the first stage dealer. During the course of the hearing before the Commissioner (Appeals), the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ger account as well as the statutory records establish the receipt of the goods. In such a situation, it would be impractical to require the assessee to go behind the records maintained by the first stage dealer. The assessee, in the present case, was found to have duly acted with all reasonable diligence in its dealings with the first stage dealer. The view which the Tribunal has taken is consistent with the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court in Commissioner of C. Ex., East Singhbhum v. Tata Motors Ltd. - 2013 (294) E.L.T. 394 (Jhar.), where it was held as follows :- "... Once a buyer of inputs receives invoices of excisable items, unless factually it is established to the contrary, it will be presumed that when payments have been made in respect of those inputs on the basis of invoices, the buyer is entitled to assume that the excise duty has been/will be paid by the supplier on the excisable inputs. The buyer will be therefore entitled to claim Modvat credit on the said assumption. It would be most unreasonable and unrealistic to expect the buyer of such inputs to go and verify the accounts of the supplier or to find out from the department of Central Excise ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the appellant is entitled to take credit on the invoices in question. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any." 22.4 One may also apply to the instant case the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex. & Customs v. D.P.Singh, reported in 2011 (270) ELT 321 (Guj.),special leave to appeal wherefrom was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner v. D.P.Singh, reported in 2014 (305) ELT A75 (SC). 22.5. In our view, it has been sufficiently established by the appellant-company that the manufacturer M/s. Ganga Sales Corporation was shown as active on the NSDL website even as on July 26, 2011. Mahendra Kumar Gourisaria, proprietor of M/s. Ganga Sales Corporation did not comply with any of the several summons issued to him. It would be evident from the impugned order that the name of Mahendra Kumar Gourisaria was mentioned by Bharat Ratna Jhunjhunwala, Dipak Kumar Nathani, Debesh Ranjan Ghosal who operated M/s. Ganapati Udyog and M/s. IRO Steel Corporation and Manoj Kumar Agarwal, Proprietor of M/s. GRE. In spite of so many persons mentioning Mahen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts selectively recorded from some of the transporters and some discrepancy found in the vehicle numbers and on the basis of statements alone it cannot be concluded that the appellant has not actually received the goods into the factory and received only invoices. Consequently, we hold that the denial of CENVAT Credit availed by the appellant on this ground is not sustainable. 19. In the present case, it is also pertinent to note that the appellant-company had purchased impugned raw materials and received the same in their factory, recorded in RG-23A Part-I & RG-23A Part-II in the inventory and books of accounts and made payments to the suppliers through proper banking channel. These facts are not in dispute. They have maintained proper records of receipt, disposal, consumption and inventory of inputs in accordance with Rule 9(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. [Raw materials Inventory, RG-23A-Part-I, RG-23A-Part-II]. We find that there is no tangible, cogent, corroborative evidence to prove non-receipt of goods by the appellant. 19.1. In the instant case, it is undisputed that all the "Central Excise dealers" are registered under Central Excise Rules, 2002 and their regist....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e has been addressed by the Tribunal. 19.3. Regarding the evidence of transportation submitted by the Revenue, we observe that it is not the case of the Department that the impugned goods were not transported by the transporters. Only two transporters owning 4 vehicles i.e. Sri Arvind Dubey, Owner of one vehicle (JH-05W-4991) and Sri Kamlesh Dubey, Owner of 3 vehicles (JH-05AL-0707, JH-05AF, JH-05Q-0707), out of the total of more than 350 vehicles involved in the instant case, stated that they have not transported the goods. Further, as the statements of said two transporters are not tested under Section 9D, hence, by operation of Section 9D, said statements have become irrelevant piece of material. 19.4. We also find that the payment to the said suppliers have been made by the appellant through proper banking channel, which are not found to be false. This means that the impugned goods were received by the appellant. In this regard, it is apt to rely on the decision in the case of Nico Extrusions Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Daman reported in 2022-VIL-643-CESTAT-AHM-CE, wherein it has been held as under: - "5.9 The next Issue for considerat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rough cheque, any cash payment was received by the appellant. With all these undisputed facts, merely on the basis of the transporter statements, it cannot be concluded that the inputs were not received by the appellant. Therefore the facts are established that the appellant have received the inputs in their factory used in the manufacture of final product and same was cleared on payment of duty. Therefore, there are no substantial evidence which result the disallowance of credit. The evidences placed by department before us are not cogent to establish that appellant is guilty of fraudulent availment of Cenvat credit. Mere suspicion or assumptions and presumptions cannot be the basis for such serious allegation of fraudulent availment of credit. From the facts and evidences placed before us, we are of the view that Impugned demand alleging fraudulent availment of credit is not sustainable. 5.11 The last Issue for consideration is regarding the Cenvat Credit demand of Rs. 81,76,443/- in respect of Invoices Issued by Supplier M/s Meal Links Alloys Ltd., M/s N.D. Metal Ind. Ltd., M/s Merchandiser Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Kothari Metals. We find that Ld. Commissioner while confirming....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hief before the adjudicating authority and also not produced for cross-examination as stipulated under Section 9D(1)(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944. From the chart produced by the Appellant we find that In almost cases the witnesses have not been examined by the Adjudicating authority and such statements cannot be admitted as evidence. The demand confirmed alleging fraudulent availment of Cenvat credit on strength of invoices without receiving inputs can not be held sustainable solely based on statements of transporters and their records to the Appellant inasmuch as the suppliers in their statements had admitted supply of goods on duty paying documents and Appellant also produced documentary evidences in respect of receipt of inputs, use thereof in manufacture of final product, statutory records showing manufacture and clearance of final product on payment of duty. Since the Revenue failed to prove alternative source of receipt of raw materials and also money flow back from manufacturer/supplier to the assessee, it cannot be said that they had not received the inputs especially when statements relied upon by the Revenue are contrary to the documentary evidence on record produced by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no Identification of person to whom said alleged cash transaction belong Said entries having not been corroborated by any Independent evidence, not reliable - On same facts and investigations, credit allowed in respect of another party and no appeal filed against such order Denial or credit on the basis of these entries not sustainable Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. [paras 21, 22, 23, 24, 26]. Thus, it has been consistently held that demands of whatever nature cannot be confirmed solely on the basis of third party's evidence/record. 06. In view of the our above discussion, we find that the demand of Cenvat cannot be sustained. We find that the appellant have satisfied the requirement of receipt of inputs along with cenvatable Invoices and use of such Inputs in the manufacture of final product, accordingly, the Cenvat credit taken by them is In accordance with the scheme of the Act read with Cenvat Credit Rules. Therefore, the Impugned order is not sustainable, hence the same is set aside." 20. Thus, by relying on the ratio of the decisions cited supra, we hold that on the basis of the statements recorded from the dealers and transporters and some dis....