Page 250 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

136 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

Bhatia, Director of M/s. JBCPL, who was the consignment agent. We find that no
reliance can be placed on these loose sheets as the name of the appellant is not
mentioned in the said loose sheets. Reliance cannot be placed on the statements
of Shri Raman Bhatia without cross-examination. Placing reliance in the follow-
ing decisions :
(i) 2018-TIOL-1917-HC-KOL in case of Modern Agency & Ors. v.
Commissioner of Customs and Ors.
(ii) 2016 (338) E.L.T. 113 (Tri.-Del.) - Commissioner of CESTAT, Delhi-I v.
Kuber Tobacco India Limited;
(iii) 2016 (340) E.L.T. 67 (P&H) - Jindal Drugs v. Union of India;
(iv) G. Tech Industries v. Union of India - 2016 (339) E.L.T. 209 (P&H).
14. We also find that M/s. JBCPL was selling the identical goods on
behalf of the other manufacturer as a dealer. No statements have been recorded
from alleged buyer of finished goods, whose name appeared on these loose
sheets. Hence, there is no corroboration for the authenticity of loose sheets or
averment of Shri Raman Bhatia. We also find that the adjudicating authority has
not followed the procedure as prescribed under Section 9D of the Central Excise
Act for placing reliance on the various statements recorded from the various per-
sons, who were either the consignment agent/dealers/supplier of the goods. It is
also stated earlier that no reliance can be placed on the third party evidence,
without independent corroboration as has been done by the adjudicating author-
ity. In holding so, we place reliance on the following cases :
(i) Rhino Rubber Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 1996 (85) E.L.T. 260 (T);
(ii) Rama Shyama Papers Ltd. v. CCE - 2004 (168) E.L.T. 494 (T);
(iii) Badri Industrial Metal Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 2000 (245) E.L.T. 539 (T) (sic);
(iv) Sri Sidhi Ispat Ltd. v. CCE - 2017 (357) E.L.T. 724 (T).
15. Regarding the availment of Cenvat credit we find that the adjudi-
cating authority has denied the credit without following the decision of Hon’ble
High Court of Allahabad in the case of Juhi Alloys (supra). We also find that alt-
hough names of the various supplier of these inputs/raw materials were availa-
ble with the investigators, however, they have not been examined and merely the
credit have been denied to the appellant. Further, we also find that no statements
of any transporter to prove the scrap was loaded from any other premises then
supplier of the goods during Alka Creations.
16. Regarding dropping of demand to the extent of Rs. 98,29,809/- the
department has not rebutted a categorical finding of the adjudicating authority.
This demand arose in respect of supply made by the appellant to M/s. MBSC
during the period from Jan. 2011 to October 2011. The case of the Revenue was
that there is undervaluation to the extent of Rs. 5/- to 10/- for SS flats in respect
of sales to M/s. MBSC by five years. However, no sufficient corroborative evi-
dence was brought on record to prove this charge by the Revenue. Though, the
statements were recorded from Managing Director, he was not questioned about
the valuation with regard to clearance to M/s. MBSC. This duty demand was
solely based on some records seized from the premises of M/s. MBSC which
showed entries merely and some found during search. We are also not in agree-
ment with the Commissioner’s observation as the duty demand of Rs.
98,29,809/- would have involved cash transaction of more than Rs. 8 crore. No
cash recovery or any other evidence. In absence of any evidence regarding un-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  298