Order date – 12 September 2022

Facts – 

• The Respondent, M/s Multimetal Limited, manufactures copper and copper alloy tubes and rods from copper alloy ingots and is registered with the Central Excise Department and had availed the CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 62,00,595/- on the strength of the invoices for copper alloy ingots issued by M/s Maruti Metals Industries Limited, Kota during the period September , 2012 to December, 2012.
• A show cause notice dated 06.10.2017 was issued alleging that the invoices issued by the Maruti Metals were based on the inputs which it had procured from M/s Sypher Impex Alloys Pvt Ltd. and that SIPL had issued invoices to Maruti Metals without supplying the materials mentioned therein and, therefore, the invoices issued by the Maruti Metals to the respondent do not qualify for CENVAT credit. 
• Accordingly, it was proposed to recover Cenvat credit of Rs. 60,00,595/- availed by the respondent with equal amount as penalty on the Respondent, which was later set aside by the authorities.
• Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal.

Issue – 

• Whether the Respondent was not entitled to the disputed Cenvat credit and liable to be recovered with equal amount of penalty?

Order – 

• The Tribunal observed that the statements made before the officers of Central Excise which were relied upon in the SCN were not put through the process under section 9D of the Central Excise Act,1944.
• As per Section 9D, any statement made before any central excise officer is relevant only if it has gone through the process prescribed therein. In this appeal, revenue has asserted that the cross-examination of the persons who made the statements were not allowed by the authority due to some reasons.
• Therefore it was held that cross examination will be necessary only if the statements made before the Central Excise Officers are, in the first place, relevant and they will be relevant only if the procedure prescribed under section 9D is followed. 
• Since this procedure has not been followed, the statements are not relevant to prove anything in this case and consequently are also not admissible.
• Further, the submissions of the respondent as well as that of the functionaries of Maruti Metals were recorded, extracts of which were reproduced in the order-in-original. None of these suggest, let alone prove, that Maruti Metals only supplied invoices to the Respondent without supplying goods. Therefore, even on merits, revenue has no case.
• Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.