TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1228
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....found in existence 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. The co-noticees namely, M/s. Rakti Trading Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Yes Commtrade (India) Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Supreme Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Singh Mineral & Infra Tech, are such non-existing entities. 1.1 The information was received pursuant to the investigation on the premise that certain registered manufacturing entities like M/s. High Tide Infra Project Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Supreme Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Singh Mineral & Infra Tech, co-noticees, are not genuine entities. These entities have been alleged to have issued Cenvatable invoices without actual goods being supplied to the first and second stage dealers in Raipur such as M/s. Rakti Trading Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Yes Commtrade (India) Pvt. Ltd. The transaction found to be managed by Shri Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, the Proprietor of M/s. Supreme Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd., Raipur, (the another co-noticee) and Shri Rajendra Manohar Soni, the Director of M/s. Supreme Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd. with their facilitator Shri Rajesh Agrawal, the co-noticee. The notice has not been served to M/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eers (P) Ltd. Vs. Comm. Of C.Ex. Delhi-IV reported as 2014-TIOL-2693-HC-ALL-CX 3.2 Similarly the statements recorded under Section 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944 during investigation cannot be relied upon unless procedure prescribed under Section 9D of the said Act is followed. Following decisions have been relied upon: (i) M/s. Surya Wires Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST reported as 2025-TIOL-736-CESTAT-DEL (ii) Punjab & Haryana in the case of G-Tech Industries Vs. Union of India reported as 2016 (339) ELT 209 (P&H) (iii) Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported as 2016 (340) ELT 67 (P&H) (iv) Goyal Tobacco Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. VVE & ST, Jaipur reported as 2017 (348) ELT 720 (Tri.-Del.). 3.3 Finally it is submitted that no search was conducted at the premises of the appellant. No Panchnama was drawn. The department merely had issued summons to the appellant seeking purchase invoices of waste and scrap, which were duly submitted by the appellant. Thus, the appellant has been wrongly involved as the co-noticee. The Cenvat credit has been filed on the Cenvatable invoices. The parties which have been alleged non-existent were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amounts to a third party evidence. Another fact admittedly is that the appellant craved for leave to cross-examine these witnesses but the request was turned down on the ground that the statements of the witnesses were voluntary and have not been retracted. I am of the opinion that the reason for denying cross-examination is not justified. Cross-examination is a most relevant tool of justice delivery system so as to undo the bias, if any. It is otherwise a statutory mandate flowing from Section 9D of Central Excise Act, 1944. The section reads as follows:- (1) A statement made and signed by a person before any Central Excise Officer of a Gazette rank during the course of any inquiry or proceeding under this Act shall be relevant, for the purpose of proving, in any prosecution for an offence under this Act, the truth of the facts which it contains, - Section 9D. Relevancy of statements under certain circumstances. - (1) A statement made and signed by a person before any Central Excise Officer of a Gazette rank during the course of any inquiry or proceeding under this Act shall be relevant, for the purpose of proving, in any prosecution for an offence under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case of Continental Cement Company Vs. Union of India - 2014 (309) ELT 411 (All.) as also Tribunal's decision in the case of Raipur Forging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur-I - 2016 (335) ELT 297 (Tri.-Del.), CCE & ST, Raipur Vs. P.D. Industries Pvt. Ltd. - 2016 (340) ELT 249 (Tri.-Del.) and CCE & ST, Ludhiana Vs. Anand Founders & Engineers - 2016 (331) ELT 340 (P&H). It stand held in all these judgements that the findings of clandestine removal cannot be upheld based upon the third party documents, unless there is clinching evidence of clandestine manufacture and removal of the goods." It is well settled law that there has to be some concrete evidence which would show clandestine manufacture of goods, as was reiterated by Tribunal, Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Raipur vs. P.D. Industries Pvt. Ltd. reported as 2016 (340) ELT 249 (Tri.-Del.). Earlier also in the case of Continental Cement Company vs. Union of India reported in 2014 (309) ELT 411 (All.), Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad has held:- "12. Further, unless there is clinching evidence of the nature of purchase of raw materials, use of electricity, sale of final products, c....