TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1371
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant along with interest of amounting to Rs.58,76,084/- and equivalent penalty. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingot utilising the Scrap/M.s. Round Cuttings, Scrap (M.S. Round Cuttings/Short Length). During the ordinary course of their business, from September, 2009 to April, 2012, the appellants had purchased 2383.385 M.T. of input from M/s. Shree Ganesh Forging Company. The transportation of the goods were arranged by them. The appellants had duly received the goods in their factory and reflected the same in their RG23A Part-1 & Part-II. The appellants were utilising the inputs and manufacturing the finished goods and clearing the finished goods on payment of appropriate duty by u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been issued making a inference that the appellant had taken credit without receiving the goods and the said credit has been proposed to be denied. 2.3 Against the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. The ld.Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant has purchased the goods against the invoices of M/s. Shree Ganesh Forging Company, which was reflected in the statutory records and there was no allegation that the appellant did not manufacture any goods by utilising those inputs and did not pay the duty on the finished goods. Only on the basis of some letters from few owners/transporters, it has been concluded that the appellant did not receive any goods and proposed to deny credit which cannot be main....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of CGST & Central Excise, Bolpur : Final Order No. 75008-75010/2026 dated 09.12.2025. 4. On the other hand, the ld.A.R. for the Revenue, has supported the impugned order. 5. Heard both the parties and considered the submissions. 6. We find that the sole allegation is to deny the cenvat credit to the appellant based on the statements of some transporter/truck owners, who made the statements that they have not transported the goods. Admittedly, those transporters were not allowed to cross-examine by the appellant and no other corroborative evidence has been brought on record. 7. We find that the evidence relied upon by the adjudicating authority is the statements of owners/authorised persons of the vehicle, which were said to have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ination, though asked for, is not disputed. There has, therefore, in our view, clearly been a breach of natural justice. On this count alone, the order of the High Court must be set aside. We are unimpressed by the argument that no prejudice was caused to the appellants by reason of the non-production of the Panchas which, it would appear, was what the High Court seemed to think." 8.2 Again, on the same issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata II reported in 2015 (324) ELT 641 (S.C.), has held as under : "6. According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....avail the opportunity of cross-examination. That apart, the Adjudicating Authority simply relied upon the price list as maintained at the depot to determine the price for the purpose of levy of excise duty. Whether the goods were, in fact, sold to the said dealers/witnesses at the price which is mentioned in the price list itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above. We may also point out that on an earlier occasion when the matter came before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 2216 of 2000, order dated 17-3-2005 [2005 (187) E.L.T. A33 (S.C.)] was passed remitting....