TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 229
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facturers/ exporters in Meerut Commissionerate. Accordingly, show cause notices have been issued to such assessees in Meerut Commissionerate alleging that they have wrongfully availed CENVAT credit on the goods supplied by the manufacturers located in Jammu & Kashmir. Show Cause Notices were also issued to such manufacturers located in Jammu & Kashmir alleging that they have abetted the wrongful availment of CENVAT credit by their customers in Meerut Commissionerate. On adjudication, penalty was imposed on such manufacturers in J&K. Some of the manufacturers against whom penalties have been imposed have approached this Bench against the impugned orders. Details are as below: Name of the appellant (Appeal No.) Date of impugned order Date of SCN Duty/ Penalty Name of the main noticee Abhay Chemicals (E/60056/2019) 28.09.2018 17.02.2010 4,98,922 M/s Narain Terpene and M/s Allied Chemicals M/s Tripti Menthol Industries (E/60425/2016) 24.06.2016 04.01.2013 2,00,000 M/s V.S Industries Uma Kant Gupta (E/60588/2016) 13.05.2016 20.12.2012 50,000 M/s Aar Bee Enterprises Uma Kant Gupta (E/60487/2016) 22.07.2016 04.12.2012 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Chandigarh-II - Final Order No. 63177/2018 in Appeal No. E/60052/2016 (Tri. Chandigarh) * M/s Vaishno International vs. CCE, Chandigarh Final Order No. 63600/2018 in Appeal No. E/60423/2016 (Tri. Chandigarh) * Neeru Enterprises, Abhay Chemicals, Sudhanshu Agarwal, Himanshu Agarwal, M/s. Siddhant Chemicals vs. CCE 2019-TIOL-3071-CESTAT-CHD * Arora Aromatics, Narbada Industries, V.S. Industries, etc. vs. CCE -Final Order No. A/71939-71959/2017-EX(DB) dated 01.11.2017 (Tri. Allahabad) 4. On the other hand, learned Authorized Representatives reiterate the findings of the impugned orders. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. We find that the issue is no longer res integra. Subsequent to the decision of the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal in favour of the manufacturers/ exporters/ dealers in Meerut Commissionerate, this Bench in a plethora of cases has allowed the appeals of many appellants. We find that in the case of Swathi Menthol and Allied Chemicals Ltd. Vide Order No.60154-60155/2025 dated 25.02.2025 we held as under: 6. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. This Bench had an occasion to decide the case o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pra) it has been held by various Courts that in the absence of challenge of the refund order, the demands cannot be made from the appellant. 12. We also find that the impugned order passed without affording an opportunity of cross examining the witnesses in spite of the request made by the appellant for cross examination of the witnesses and in the absence of cross examination, their statements cannot be relied upon as held by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jindal Drugs cited (supra). Here, we would like to reproduce the findings of the Tribunal in the case of Neeru Enterprises & Ors. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh-II vide Final Order No. 60368-60373 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019 which is recorded in Para 10 to Para 12 as under: - "10. We further take note of the fact that, the investigation was not conducted at the end of the appellants and whole case has been based on the investigation conducted at Commissioner Central Excise, Merrut-II. Without investigation, it cannot be held that the appellant was not manufacturer during the impugned period. Moreover, the entries of vehicles at the toll barriers also certified that the movements of raw material and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "6. We find that in this case the sole allegation against the appellant is based on the investigation made by Commissioner of Central Excise, Merrut, and as per the investigation, it is alleged that farmers from whom the inputs were purchased were nonexistence. Therefore, commission agents never supplied inputs to the appellant and the appellant did not manufacture the goods. Consequently, they have not sold the goods and it was alleged that the appellant has not manufactured the goods at all. 7. We take a note of the fact that the check post movement of trucks which were carrying inputs as well as finished goods were found entered. We further take note of the fact that the appellant has produced the evidence of the entry of all the transport vehicles i.e. trucks which have entered in the state of Punjab and have left the state of Punjab, as the same has been certified by the Punjab Sales Tax Department having entries of entry and exit all the vehicles, therefore, it cannot be said that the raw material/finished goods have never entered or left in the state of Jammu & Kashmir, therefore, the allegation on the basis of the investigation conducted by the Commissione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s been clearly mentioned that during the periodical checks by the departmental officers, the appellant found manufacturing the goods. Moreover, no discrepancy was found and on toll barriers it was found that the vehicles carried inputs/finished goods found entered. Moreover, the District Centre also certified the said fact. 10. We further take note of the fact that the various other departments namely Pollution Control Department, District Industries Department, Electrical Department have visited the factory of the appellant and found functioning. All these facts have not been disputed by the Revenue. As there is no corroborative evidence to show that the appellant were not manufacturing the goods, therefore, the allegation alleged in the show cause notice is not sustainable. 11.We further take note of the fact that on the basis of the same investigation conducted by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Merrut, the case was booked against the various parties namely M/s Arora Aromatic & Others Vide Final Order No. 71939- 71959/2017 dated 01.11.2017, this Tribunal observed as under: 10. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of the facts on r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... verified by the Officers of Central Excise Department and sample of the same were also drawn and forwarded for Chemical Examination. Such evidence was also not accepted by the Original Authority, Therefore, it appears that the Original Authority was predetermined to adjudicate the matter in the manner in which he has decided the issue and he was not just and fair and did not discharge his duty as an independent adjudicator. We, therefore, set aside both the impugned Orders-in-Original dated 29/01/2010 & 29/03/2011 and allow all the appeals filed by appellant. The appellant shall be entitled for consequential relief. All the demand and penalties imposed are also set aside. All the Miscellaneous/Stay Applications stand disposed, as infructuous." 12. In view of the above observations, we hold that without bringing any concrete evidence against the appellant on record, the proceedings against the appellant are not sustainable, therefore, the show cause notice issued to the appellant is only on the basis of the assumption and presumption and investigation conducted by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Merrut, but without conducting any investigation at the end of the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and did not discharge his duty as an independent adjudicator. 8. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the allegation levelled against the appellants do not sustain. The averment by the learned Authorized Representative that some of the supplies made may be fake is of no help at this stage. It was open to the Department to collect all the evidences and make precise allegations while issuing the Show Cause Notice. The bus having been missed, Revenue cannot open a new front to continue the litigation before us on the facts and records which were not part of the impugned proceedings. We find that the charge of clandestine removal is a grave one. It has to be levelled with accuracy though mathematical precision cannot be expected. We find that Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, in the matter of Nova Petrochemicals v. CCE, Ahmedabad-II, in its Final Order Nos. A/11207-11219/2013, dated 26-92013, held as under: "40. After having very carefully considered the law laid down by this Tribunal in the matter of clandestine manufacture and clearance, and the submissions made before us, it is clear that the law is well settled that, in cases of clandestin....