Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.22 seconds)

Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S Parmarth Iron Pvt. Ltd. on 29 November, 2010

(vii) That appellants sought cross-examination of transporters, however, the learned Commissioner did not permit cross-examination of main witnesses i.e. Shri Om Prakash Sharma, Shri Mukesh Verma and Shri Arun Kumar B. Singh and authors of letter submitted by M/s. Delite Cargo Carriers and others, though he agreed and granted cross-examination of other witnesses, who were not important. As the entire case of non receipt of duty paid inputs is based on statements of transporters whose cross-examination was not given by the learned Commissioner contrary to the ratio of the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of CCE, Meerut vs. Parmarth Iron Pvt. Limited reported in [2010 (260) ELT 514 (All.)], therefore, the learned Commissioner could not have relied upon the statement of transporters to confirm the demand raised against the appellants. Further, it is well settled law that the learned Commissioner could not have relied upon the statement of Shri Pravin Jain who in the same proceedings is co-noticee in the absence of any corroborative evidence as held by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Mohte Sham Ismail reported in [2007 (220) ELT 3 (SC 7]
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 50 - A P Sahi - Full Document

Commr. Of C. Ex. vs India Tube Mills And Metal Industries on 4 October, 2006

6. A bare perusal? of the orders made by the adjudicating authority as well as the appellate authority clearly indicates that neither of the said authorities have discussed the evidence in detail and have merely placed reliance upon the report of the transporter for the purpose of holding that the assessee had in fact not received the goods referred to in the invoices and that only invoices had been issued to it and, therefore, the credit was not admissible to the assessee.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 0 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1