CHIVAS INTERNATIONAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN the case was called none appeared on behalf of the appellant in spite of notice, therefore, the appeal is being taken up in absence of the appellant. Heard ld. JDR.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of MS products and availing the benefit of Modvat credit under Rule 57 of Central Excise Rules. The appellant received certain inputs i.e. MS scrap from M/s. Mahabir Prasad and Co. On verification by the Revenue, it was found that M/s. Mahabir Prasad and Co. only issued the invoices showing the clearance of MS scrap whereas no such scrap was received by the appellant. The copies of invoices recovered from the premises of M/s. Mahabir Prasad and Co. shows that the triplicate copy of invoice shows the description of goods as empty containers and in invoices the copy of description and quantities are different than the invoices produced by the appellant for availing the benefit of Modvat credit. It was also found during investigation that vehicle number mentioned in the invoices are in respect of Government vehicles, three -wheelers etc. A show cause notice was issued for denial of Modvat credit and for imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authority denied the credit.

(3.) THE contention of the appellant in the present appeal that the Revenue relied upon the statement of Shri Anil Kumar Gupta and Shri Mahesh Sharma of M/s. Mahabir Prasad and Co. and the appellants were not allowed to cross -examine these witnesses. The contention is that the statements were recorded at the back of the appellant, therefore, the findings recorded relying the statement without allowing cross -examination are not sustainable. The contention of the appellant is also that nothing is done wrong by their and the appellant cannot be penalized for the wrong action of the manufacturer.