TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 451
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding to the Revenue, the impugned Order of the CESTAT not only upheld the Adjudicating Authority's erroneous Order-in-Original dated 31st January, 2019 to drop the demand of Rs. 12.92 crores in Cenvat credit alongwith consequential interest and penalties (being the subject matter of CEXA No. 43 of 2025) but also set aside the portion of the Order in Original that had rightly confirmed various demands against the Respondent for shortage of raw materials at various units of the Respondent and for illicit diversion of duty paid inputs under the guise of fictitious sales of finished goods (the subject matter of the present Appeal). 3. According to the Revenue, in the present Appeal, the impugned Order gives rise to the following five questio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ances of the case and in law, the CESTAT erred by not remanding the case back to the adjudicating authority for further examination and adjudication?" 4. As far as questions A and B are concerned, the Adjudicating Authority denied Cenvat credit of Rs. 21,02,888/- to the Respondent on the ground of shortage of raw material. This finding of the Adjudicating Authority was over turned by the CESTAT in the impugned Order. In the impugned Order, at paragraphs 5.1 to 5.13, the CESTAT noted the submissions and explanations of the Appellant as to why there was a shortage of the raw material and thereafter gave its finding on this aspect in paragraph 8.8. To put it in a nutshell, the explanation given for the shortage by the Respondent was two fol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her find that there is no other material or evidence on record of diversion of these inputs. We are of the view that the said shortages are properly explained. The denial of CENVAT credit is liable to be set aside and we accordingly set aside the same." 6. After going through the impugned Order on this aspect as well as considering the submissions of the Appellants before the CESTAT, we do not find that on this issue, the impugned Order gives rise to any substantial question of law. We find that the explanation given by the Respondent and which is accepted by the CESTAT is one which is fair and reasonable and can by no stretch of imagination be termed as perverse. Hence, question A is not entertained. 7. As far as question B is concer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....goods. The CESTAT noted that out of the statement of 11 truck owners/drivers, only 4 were present before the Adjudicating Authority. There was no Examination-In-Chief done by the Revenue in relation to two out of the 4, and in fact the cross examination of all the 4 was done by the Adjudicating Authority itself and thereafter cross examination was allowed to the Respondent in a restricted manner. The CESTAT noted that this was duly recorded by the Advocates for the Respondent in their letter dated 10th October, 2018 and the said letter has neither been denied nor disputed by the Adjudicating Authority or the Revenue. It is in these facts that the CESTAT came to the conclusion that the procedure followed by the Adjudicating Authority (the Co....