JUDGMENT K.S. Jhaveri, J. - By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee. 2. This Court while admitting the appeal on 12-7-2017 framed the following question of law :- "Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT was correct in setting aside the applicable interest statutorily required under Section 11AB/Section 11AA of Central Excise Act, 1944 and the equal penalty imposed mandatorily under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 on the assessee?" 3. The brief facts of the case are that acting upon an intelligence that M/s. S. Pal Enterprises (Pvt.) Limited, 521-22 RIICO Industrial Area, Chopanki, Bhiwadi are indulged in fraudulent availment of Cenvat Credit in the guise of transfer of material/goods from their Gurgaon unit to Bhiwadi unit while no actual transaction of goods had taken place, officers of the Preventive Branch of Central Excise Division, Bhiwadi visited the factory premises of the assessee situated at 521-22, RIICO Industrial Area, Chopanki Bhiwadi on 28-6-2008. On examination of records of the assessee, it was observed that they have availed Cenvat credit to the tune of Rs. 36,43,618/- (BED 35,37,491/- + Ed. Cess Rs. 70,749/- + Sec. and Hr. Ed. Cess Rs. 35,318/-) against fifteen invoices issued by one of their own unit namely M/s. S. Pal Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd., 378-379, Phase-IV, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon (as detailed in Annexure-A to the show cause notice). It was further gathered by the officers that their Gurgaon unit was also engaged in the manufacture of similar goods and was holding Central Excise Registration No. AAECS1246FXM001 at Gurgaon which they had surrendered in the month of June, 2007. 4. Counsel for the appellant Mr. Kinshuk Jain submitted that Tribunal has committed serious error in not appreciating the facts recorded by the First Authority wherein it has been held as under :- "Efforts were made to verify the entry of goods said to be covered under these 15 invoices from the commercial tax authorities of Government of Rajasthan as they bore dated stamp of sales tax/commercial tax department evidencing crossing of Rajasthan state border. The stamps on invoices bear unclear and half printed "Rajasthan Sarkar" and "Vanijyik Kar Vibhag" and a clear date but do not show the name or location of commercial tax check post, entry/register number or any other remark of having paid or going through the process of commercial taxation. Invoices No. 1 to 14 bear date "11 MAY, 2007" and invoices No. 16 carry date "18 MAY, 2007" in identical manner. Jurisdictional Commercial Tax Officers of the Government of Rajasthan were requested to verify the genuineness of stamps vide the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Bhiwadi's letters dated 14-72010, 8-2-2011, 21-2-2011, 28-3-2011, 4-5-2011, 14-12-2011, 20-3-2012. Regular telephonic request were made and a number of personal visits were also made. After long pursuance from the Central Excise department and detailed check of record by the Commercial Tax Department of Govt., of Rajasthan, the Commercial Tax Officer, Circle-B, Bhiwadi vide his letter No. 54, dated 30-3-2012. informed that the invoices do not carry the name of Check Post, Vehicle Traffic Register number ("Wahan Aawagaman Panjika Kramank") and signature of the concerned in-charge of check posts, thus, the stamps on the invoices do not appear to be genuine of Commercial Tax department. (i) In terms of Rule 10 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, if a manufacturer of the final products shifts his factory to another site, then, the manufacturer shall be allowed to transfer the CENVAT credit lying unutilized in his accounts to such transferred factory only if the stock of inputs as such or in process, or the capital goods, is also transferred along with the factory or business premises to the new site or ownership and the inputs, or capital goods, on which credit has been availed of are duly accounted for, to the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or, as the case may be, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. (ii) On all fifteen invoices 'shifting of raw material to new premises' has been marked and Sh. Shishu Pal Garg in his statement dated 14-7-2008 admitted that they did not obtain any permission from Central Excise, Gurgaon in terms of Rule 10 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as required for transfer of capital goods Raw Material/Finished goods etc. In fact after said transfer of goods, they applied for surrender of registration on 15-6-2007 which was accepted on 18-2-2008. In fact after said transfer of goods, they applied for surrender of registration on 15-6-2007 which was accepted on 18-2-2008. In the instant case the assessee has not followed above procedural requirement and have claimed to have removed the goods as such on voice, for the reasons, best known to them." 5. He has also taken us to the conclusion reached by the authority which reads as under :- "(xiii) It is also incorrect to state that their unit in Gurgaon had worked for more than 13 years with an unblemished record because at Gurgaon also they were found to have been indulged in fraudulent availment of CENVAT credit without actual transaction of goods for which they were penalized and recovery of credit was ordered. The clinching fact in this entire exercise is the showing of charging of Rs. 12,000/-as detention charges by the transporter. If the assessee's version of actual transportation of the goods on 10/11-7-2007 is taken to be correct, where is the need for charging detention charges by the transporter, since as per the version of Sh. Garg, and of Sh. Kalra there was no detention of the trucks. It is evident that detention charges have been shown to have been charged only to cover up the time delay as reflected in the invoices raised and the date of transportation claimed." 6. Taking into consideration, he further contended that the Tribunal while appreciating the evidence has committed serious error in ignoring the finding arrived at by the CIT (A) wherein the CIT (A) has held as under :- The invoices (Documents were resumed) issued by M/s. S. Pal Enterprises Ltd. Gurgaon showed transfer of inputs from their Gurgaon Unit to Bhiwadi Unit; The dates mentioned in the invoices and the GRs did not match with the date of receipt of the goods shown. The invoices have been prepared between the dates 5-5-2007 and 13-5-2007 while the goods are being claimed to have been transported on the intervening night of 10/11-5-2007 and more importantly, the vehicles which are mentioned in the invoices to have transported the goods from Gurgaon to Bhiwadi, have actually not been used for the transfer/transportation of the goods claimed to have been made by the appellant. Invoices are key statutory documents required to be prepared at the time of removal of the goods in terms of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Invoices are key statutory documents required to be prepared at the time of removal of the goods in terms of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. I further observed that Sh. Raj Kumar Kalra, in his statement dated 3-7-2008, has categorically admitted that they had issued thirteen different GRs between 5-5-2007 and 10-5-2007 showing transportation of goods of the unit from Gurgaon to Bhiwadi on truck No. HR-55E-5728 HR-55E-5729 and all the consignments had been shown reached Bhiwadi on 11-5-2007, however, they had not transported these goods till 9-5-2007. Although, he had stated that the goods had been actually transported through different trucks in the night of 10-52007 and reached at Bhiwadi on 11-5-2007. He had in fact confirmed that the trucks, numbers of which were mentioned in the invoices had not been used for transporting the goods and were in fact being used for transportation of other goods at different locations. He has also confirmed that on the day said GRs corresponding to the invoices were prepared they were not having the said trucks with them available for transportation of the appellant's goods and that they had prepared these GRs only on the request of the appellant. He has in fact confirmed that goods were not transported under cover of the GRs given by him to the appellant. Even Sh. Kuldeep Sharma, Employee of M/s. Sai Ram Logistic Pvt. Limited (i.e. that transporter) has in his statement confirmed preparation of only the GRs, that too from a different set of GR book, as per directions of Sh. Kalra only to facilitate the appellant. The fact that the GRs relevant for showing transportation of the impugned goods have been prepared from a separate set of GR books and the fact that all the copies of the GRs were prepared deliberately for manipulation purposes only and were not used for transportation of the goods. Sh. Shishu Pal Garg, Director of the appellant's Unit in his statement has also confirmed that the goods were not loaded as per the dated and time of removal given in the invoices. I also found it strange that factory is being shifted from one location to another and the Director is not aware how and when the goods are moved, when and how the invoices were prepared, which trucks were used, when the goods were actually received. I also found it strange that factory is being shifted from one location to another and the Director is not aware how and when the goods are moved, when and how the invoices were prepared, which trucks were used, when the goods were actually received. The Director of the company saying that they did not have any documentary evidence regarding loading of goods on 10-5-2007 and only the transporter or the dealing excise person (who has conveniently left the job) knew from where, when, how and in which trucks the goods were transported, clearly shows that the entire process undertaken by them, in connivance with the transporter is nothing but sham created in order to avail themselves of the credit irregularly. I also observed from the records that the clinching fact in this entire exercise is the showing the charging of Rs. 12,000/- as detention charges by the transporter. If the appellants' version of actual transportation of the goods on 10/11-7-2007 is taken to be correct, where is the inputs, or capital goods, on which credit has been availed of are duly accounted for to the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or, as the case may be the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. It is thus clear that the transfer of credit is to be allowed only if the stock of inputs/WIP/capital goods is transferred to the new site or ownership, that too, to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. During the course of investigation, sufficient opportunity was available to the appellant to produce evidences showing actual transportation, transfer of the goods as claimed by them. However, they have not been able to produce any evidence to this effect. Therefore, it cannot be said that there has been any compliance of the Rule which requires actual transfer of the goods before making the credit available for transfer. The appellant have also claimed that they had entered the goods in their statutory records and had removed the goods as such to M/s. Sriram Cables after reversing the credit taken. They have submitted copies of invoices claiming to be evidence showing clearance of the said goods. I have seen these invoices which have been raised between dates 9-5-2007 to 15-5-2007. These invoices, on the contrary, conclusively prove the Department's case. They have submitted copies of invoices claiming to be evidence showing clearance of the said goods. I have seen these invoices which have been raised between dates 9-5-2007 to 15-5-2007. These invoices, on the contrary, conclusively prove the Department's case. I find that two of these invoices were raised on 9-5-2007 (S.No. SPEPL/01 and SPEPL/02 both dated 9-5-2007) even before the date on which receipt of the goods from Gurgaon is being claimed. This clearly shows the appellant's intentions. How can an invoice be raised for as such removal of goods even before actual receipt of the goods in the factory premises? It is obvious that the entire activity done by the appellant was for availing irregular credit deliberately with a mala fide intention. The Hon'ble Apex Court's judgments in case of CCE, New Delhi vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal - 2010 (260) E.L.T. 3 and CCE, Jaipur vs. Raghuvar (India) Ltd. reported at 2000 (118) E.L.T. 311 (S.C.) are squarely applicable in the instant case." 7. In support of his contention, he relied on the following decisions : (i) In Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur vs. M/s. Raghuvar (India) Ltd. - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 311 wherein it has been held as under :-14. The above conclusion of ours is itself sufficient to answer the question in favour of the Revenue and against the manufacturer, even de hors the applicability or otherwise of the principle of construction - Generalia specialibus non derogant, since they do not operate on the same field or cover the same area, to be reconciled in order to avert any clash or inconsistency. That apart, even if it is to be assumed that they relate to one and the same nature of demand from the manufacturer of any amount due from him to the State, the provisions contained in Section 11A are general in nature and application and the Modvat scheme being a specific and special beneficial scheme, with self-contained procedure, manner and method for its implementation, providing for its own remedies to undo any mischief committed by the manufacturer in abuse thereof, the provisions of the said special scheme alone will govern such a situation and there is no scope for reading the stipulations contained in a general provision like Section 11A into the provision of the rules in question which alone will govern in its entirety the enforcement of the Modvat Scheme. The question as to the relative nature of the provisions general or special has to be determined, as observed earlier, with reference to the area and extent of their application either generally in all circumstances or specially in particular situations and not on the ground that one is a mere provision in the Act and the other is a provision in the Rule. We are not also concerned in this case with any challenge to the inconsistency of a rule with any statutory provision in the Act. (ii) Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal and Ors. - 2010 (260) E.L.T. 3 wherein it has been held as under :- 24. The doctrine of substantial compliance is a judicial invention, equitable in nature, designed to avoid hardship in cases where a party does all that can reasonably expected of it, but failed or faulted in some minor or inconsequent aspects which cannot be described as the "essence" or the "substance" of the requirements. Like the concept of "reasonableness", the acceptance or otherwise of a plea of "substantial compliance" depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the purpose and object to be achieved and the context of the prerequisites which are essential to achieve the object and purpose of the rule or the regulation. Such a defence cannot be pleaded if a clear statutory prerequisite which effectuates the object and the purpose of the statute has not been met. Certainly, it means that the Court should determine whether the statute has been followed sufficiently so as to carry out the intent for which the statute was enacted and not a mirror image type of strict compliance. Substantial compliance means "actual compliance in respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute" and the court should determine whether the statute has been followed sufficiently so as to carry out the intent of the statute and accomplish the reasonable objectives for which it was passed. Fiscal statute generally seeks to preserve the need to comply strictly with regulatory requirements that are important, especially when a party seeks the benefits of an exemption clause that are important. Fiscal statute generally seeks to preserve the need to comply strictly with regulatory requirements that are important, especially when a party seeks the benefits of an exemption clause that are important. Substantial compliance of an enactment is insisted, where mandatory and directory requirements are lumped together, for in such a case, if mandatory requirements are complied with, it will be proper to say that the enactment has been substantially complied with notwithstanding the noncompliance of directory requirements. In cases where substantial compliance has been found, there has been actual compliance with the statute, albeit procedurally faulty. The doctrine of substantial compliance seeks to preserve the need to comply strictly with the conditions or requirements that are important to invoke a tax or duty exemption and to forgive non-compliance for either unimportant and tangential requirements or requirements that are so confusingly or incorrectly written that an earnest effort at compliance should be accepted. The test for determining the applicability of the substantial compliance doctrine has been the subject of a myriad of cases and quite often, the critical question to be examined is whether the requirements relate to the "substance" or "essence" of the statute, if so, strict adherence to those requirements is a pre-condition to give effect to that doctrine. On the other hand, if the requirements are procedural or directory in that they are not of the "essence" of the thing to be done but are given with a view to the orderly conduct of business, they may be fulfilled by substantial, if not strict compliance. In other words, a mere attempted compliance may not be sufficient, but actual compliance of those factors which are considered as essential. 8. Counsel for the respondent has taken us to the order of the Tribunal wherein it has been observed as under :- Heard both the sides and examined the appeal records. The denial of credit for the main appellant is mainly on the ground that the transport documents and the check post details raised a serious question regarding the bona fideness of the transport of duty paid inputs lying in stock at their Gurgaon unit and later transported to the new Bhiwadi unit. The denial of credit for the main appellant is mainly on the ground that the transport documents and the check post details raised a serious question regarding the bona fideness of the transport of duty paid inputs lying in stock at their Gurgaon unit and later transported to the new Bhiwadi unit. After careful consideration of the appeal papers and arguments, I find that the following factors emerged as relevant :- (a) There is no dispute regarding the raw material account and other statutory records maintained both at Gurgaon unit and Bhiwadi unit. When the licence was surrendered for Gurgaon unit, the officers conducted verification of records regarding input receipt credit availability etc. and finally the surrender of certificate was accepted on 18-2-2008; (b) the truck numbers in the GR forms issued by the transport were apparently not correct. This by itself does not establish the non-transport of goods. The claim of the appellant that the usual practice of the transporters is to indicate some truck numbers as per the initial plan or to get business and later transport the goods through other own vehicles or arranged vehicles. I find that the discrepancy in the truck numbers alone cannot lead to the conclusion of non-transport/non-receipt of duty paid inputs in Bhiwadi unit in the absence of clear evidence regarding improper diversion of the said items. The material receipt record and the statutory records maintained at Bhiwadi cannot be easily discounted; (c) Certain duty paid inputs have in fact been cleared to some buyers as such. There has been no verification to check up the correctness of such transaction. In the absence of any allegation such transactions are to be admitted as correct and supporting the contention of the appellant at least partially; (d) Regarding the stamp on the check post, it is noted that the inter-state movement of goods have been recognized by the concerned Sales Tax Authorities and the assessment for the material period have been completed factoring the inter-state movement of the impugned inputs to Bhiwadi unit; (e) The denial of credit is mainly sought to be made on various purported discrepancies in the GR forms, date of invoices and actual receipt of goods in Bhiwadi unit. Though certain enquiries conducted by the Department raised certain suspicion in this case, there is no categorical conclusion to the enquiry through a finding that the duty paid inputs have been diverted to place other than their Bhiwadi unit or the production and other records of Bhiwadi unit do not reflect the correct position. Too many unfilled gaps in the case makes the proceeding before lower Authorities as unsustainable." 9. He contented that the Tribunal has rightly reversed the finding of the authority inasmuch as the owner in his statement has stated as under :- 7(iii) They had not transported these goods till 9-5-2007. Actually all the goods had been transported through different trucks in the night of 10-5-2007 and reached at Bhiwadi on 11-5-2007; that he would produce the details of these trucks separately; that no fresh GRs were prepared for transportation from other trucks; Truck Nos. HR-55E-5728 and HR-55E-5729 were not used for the transportation of these goods." 10. He submitted that contention of Mr. Jain is to be read as a whole and he has also taken us to statement of Shishu Pal Garg, Director of the company wherein it has been stated as under : "(v) Goods were not loaded as per the date and time of removal given in the invoices but all the goods were actually loaded on 10-5-2007 and received in factory on 11-5-2007." 11. He further contended that the defence which has been put forward by the assessee reads as under : A. Rule 10 of Cenvat Credit Rules Complied With Substantially. (i) They were having a factory at Gurgaon engaged in the manufacture of wires and cables. They closed their factory at Gurgaon with effect from 1-6-2007 and started a new factory at Bhiwadi for manufacture of wires and cables. They had inputs in balance with them at Gurgaon Factory. These inputs were transferred to their new factory at Bhiwadi through trucks provided by M/s. Sai Ram Logistics Pvt. Ltd. They had taken the Cenvat credit in their RG-23A Part-II at Bhiwadi. (ii) Rule 10(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2004 enables a manufacturer of the final products to transfer the CENVAT credit lying unutilized in his accounts if he shifts his factory to another site. There is no dispute about the facts of them transferring their factory to another site. (ii) Rule 10(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2004 enables a manufacturer of the final products to transfer the CENVAT credit lying unutilized in his accounts if he shifts his factory to another site. There is no dispute about the facts of them transferring their factory to another site. In view of such undisputed facts, they were legally eiligible to transfer the CENVAT credit lying unutilized at Gurgaon factory to new factory at Bhiwadi under Rule 10(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. (iii) The condition specified in Rule 10(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules are stock of inputs as such or in process is transferred along with the factory of the new site and inputs are duly accounted for the satisfaction of the Deputy Assistant Commissioner. It was submitted that they have complied substantial with the conditions specified in Rule 10 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 inasmuch as they have shifted their factory from Gurgaon to Bhiwadi and the CENVAT credit lying unutilized in their accounts at transferable to their new factory at Bhiwadi. (iv) It was submitted that the input transferred to near unit at Bhiwadi were duly mentioned in the ER-1 Return for the month of May, 2007 filedly Factory. Further, due intimation was given to the Assistant Commissioner, Excise Division I, Gurgaon. (v) It has been alleged in the show cause notice that they did not obtain any permission from Central Excise, Gurgaon in terms of Rule 10 of the CENVAT Credit Rules as required for transfer of raw materials. In this regard, it was submitted that prior permission of Central Excise Department was not required for transfer of credit to new unit under Rule 10(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. B. Inputs Duly Received In The New Factory. (i) It was submitted that there was no substance in the allegation that the inputs were not received by their new factory at Bhiwadi. It was evident from their records that inputs were in balance during the month of May, 2007 at the Gurgaon Factory. These inputs were removed on payment of duty from Gurgaon Factory to Bhiwadi Factory. All the Central Excise invoices issued by Gurgaon factory confirm the fact of payment of duty on removal of inputs to new factory at Bhiwadi. It was evident from their records that inputs were in balance during the month of May, 2007 at the Gurgaon Factory. These inputs were removed on payment of duty from Gurgaon Factory to Bhiwadi Factory. All the Central Excise invoices issued by Gurgaon factory confirm the fact of payment of duty on removal of inputs to new factory at Bhiwadi. (ii) It was further submitted that the receipt of inputs by Bhiwadi factory is evident from the contemporaneous records such as Material Receipt Note, prepared by Bhiwadi factory on receipt of the goods at Bhiwadi unit. The Department has not adduced any evidence or statement of the parson who prepared the Material Receipt Note that the inputs were not received physically in the factory at Bhiwadi. In absence of any such evidence, it cannot be alleged by the Department that the inputs were not removed from Gurgaon factory and were not received in Bhiwadi factory. (iii) It was further added that they have duly entered the inputs in RG23 Pt. I and credit in RG23A Pt. II at the Bhiwadi factory. There was no statement from any employee at Bhiwadi factory to the effect that the credit had been taken without the receipt of the inputs in Bhiwadi factory. In absence of any evidence, there was no substance in the allegation that they had manipulated RG23A Pt. I and Part-II Registers to justify the receipt. (iv) It was also submitted that it has not been disputed in the show cause notice that there was no balance of inputs in the Gurgaon factory in the month of May, 2007. Further, there is neither any allegation nor any evidence has been adduced in the show cause notice that the inputs have been sold by Gurgaon factory to any other person. In absence of any evidence to the contrary, it was not open to the Department to allege that inputs were not received by the factory at Bhiwadi. Once the presence of balance of inputs at Gurgaon factory is not disputed, its receipt by new unit at Bhiwadi cannot be doubted when the gurgaon factory has been closed and new factory at Bhiwadi has been started. (v) It was further submitted that, the inputs were removed from Bhiwadi factory as such after reversing the CENVAT credit taken earlier. These inputs were removed as such to M/s. Sriram Cables under Invoices. (v) It was further submitted that, the inputs were removed from Bhiwadi factory as such after reversing the CENVAT credit taken earlier. These inputs were removed as such to M/s. Sriram Cables under Invoices. Copies of such invoices were submitted and it was argued that this clearly proves that the goods were duly received in the factory at Bhiwadi. The Department has also not adduced any evidence to show that any other goods were received by Bhiwadi Factory. It was submitted that, therefore, the CENVAT credit taken by them was legal. (vi) Reliance was placed on the following decisions :- CCE vs. Shakti Roll Cold Stripe Pvt. Ltd. - 2007 (80) RLT 267 (T-Del.) CCE vs. Neepaz Steels Ltd. - 2008 (87) RL.T 463 (P&H) (vii) It was further submitted that in the present matter, the Transport Company is very much in existence and Shri Raj Kumar Kalra, Director of M/s. Sai Ram Logistics Pvt. Ltd. had clearly stated in his statement dated 3-7-2008 that his Company was doing business with M/s. S. Pal Enterprises who earlier had a factory at Gurgaon and thereafter they started a new factory at Bhiwadi. Shri Kalra has categorically admitted in his statement dated 3-7-2008 that they had transported goods May, 2007 from the assessee's Gurgaon factory to Bhiwadi factory. In view of such a statement which has not been controverted, it cannot be alleged by the Department that the inputs were not dispatched from Gurgaon factory and were received in Bhiwadi factory. (viii) It was further submitted that the entire show cause notice has been issued simply on the basis that truck numbers mentioned were not correct. It is submitted that from mere difference in truck numbers, it cannot be concluded that goods were not transported. It was emphasized that such inconsistency in truck numbers may occur for various reasons. It was stated that it appears that the excise person of the assessee at their Gurgaon factory had mentioned the truck number in the invoices as informed by the transport company and due to non-availability of trucks, the goods were not transported in the same truck on the same day and might have been transported in different truck. It was stated that it appears that the excise person of the assessee at their Gurgaon factory had mentioned the truck number in the invoices as informed by the transport company and due to non-availability of trucks, the goods were not transported in the same truck on the same day and might have been transported in different truck. (xi) It was submitted that the goods dispatched from Gurgaon factory under the cover of the invoices/GRs have been received in factory at Chopanki, Bhiwadi and were duly accounted for in the books of accounts of the receiving factory. The ER-1 return for 5/2007 showing the inventory of input removed as such, Sales Tax stamp affixed on invoice showing entry of goods in Rajasthan through Sales Tax check post at Haryana-Rajasthan Border, entry of goods in the gate register of chopanki factory and their accounted in the book of account, ledger A/c showing payment of freight to the transport company and verification and audit of records of Gurgaon unit by the concerned Excise authorities are more than sufficient to prove the dispatch of goods from Gurgaon factory and their receipt in Chopanki Bhiwadi factory and their further removal on reversing of credit to M/s. Sriram Cables from Bhiwadi factory. (xii) It was further argued that it has been alleged in the show cause notice that vehicle Number RJ-01-09092 was not registered with Ajmer Transport office. In this regard, it was submitted that it has been presumed by the Department that RJ series is issued by Ajmer Transport Office without any basis and enquiry has been made from Ajmer Transport office only through Central Excise Ajmer. There is no letter directly issued by the Transport office Ajmer. Whatever has been reported by Central Excise, Ajmer is only oral version which is not admissible as evidence. Moreover the said series may have been issued by any other Transport Division of the State of Rajasthan. It was also mentioned that if truck registration number is false, no action has been taken against the Transport Company by the State Transport office. (xiii) It was further submitted that it is mentioned in the show cause notice that since the invoices did not carry the name of check post, vehicle traffic registration number, the stamp of State Check Post on invoices does not appear to be genuine. (xiii) It was further submitted that it is mentioned in the show cause notice that since the invoices did not carry the name of check post, vehicle traffic registration number, the stamp of State Check Post on invoices does not appear to be genuine. In this regard, a perusal of letter dated 30-3-2012 of Commercial Tax Officer, Bhiwadi makes it very clear that this was a common practice adopted by Check Post not to mention the number of truck, etc. as the instruction had been issued in the post to mention the number and to put signature. It was, therefore, submitted that non-mentioning of number etc. was very common. Further it was not in the hands of the assessee or the Transport Company to get the number, etc. mentioned. If some department does not work properly and as per the instruction the charge of non-genuineness of the document cannot be levelled against them. Moreover, the Commercial Tax Officer, Bhiwadi has not clearly mentioned in his letter dated 30-3-2012 that the stamp of Check Post was fake. He has merely ventured a guess that the stamp does not appear to be genuine as the number and signature were not given. It was requested that the stamp of Rajasthan State Commercial Tax Department put on the invoices may be checked again from the Commercial Tax Department which would reveal that the stamp is genuine. It was added that the assessment of Commercial Tax has been completed by the Commercial Tax Department for the relevant period without any objection. A copy of the relevant Assessment Order was enclosed and it was pleaded that in the Assessment Order, the values of the goods transferred from Gurgaon factory to Bhiwadi factory had been deducted from Gross Turn Over being Inter State transfer. (xiv) A copy of Form "F" under the Central Sales [Tax] Act, required to be produced under the Central Sales Tax Act as proof of stock transfer, was submitted. It was submitted that as per Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, a dealer who claims that transfer of goods outside State is not sale has to prove that the Inter-State transfer is not sale by producing a declaration from branch from other State in prescribed form "F". In the present matter, the "F" form was in existence which clearly goes to prove the transfer of goods from Gurgaon to Bhiwadi. In the present matter, the "F" form was in existence which clearly goes to prove the transfer of goods from Gurgaon to Bhiwadi. It was added that it is provided in Section 6A(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act that if the assessing authority is satisfied that the particulars contained in Form "F" are true he may make an order to that effect. In the present matter the Assessing Authority had accepted the fact of Inter-State transfer in the Assessment order. This clearly proves the transfer of goods from Gurgaon to Bhiwadi. (xv) It was also submitted that Superintendent Central Excise Range-VII, Gurgaon had directed their factory at Gurgaon to produce records relating to inputs/semi finished goods (WIP) transferred to Bhiwadi factory from Gurgaon unit. They had shown these records to the Range Superintendent. It was emphasized that only after seeing these records, the Range Superintendent issued the letter dated 18-22008. (copy enclosed) conveying the acceptance of surrender of Registration Certificate by the Assistant Commissioner. It was thus evident that the Central Excise Department of Gurgaon was satisfied about the existence of inputs with the Gurgaon factory. It was submitted that, therefore, the inputs were duly dispatched by Gurgaon factory which were duly received by Bhiwadi factory and the CENVAT credit had been taken legally. (xvi) It was submitted that all the clearances were shown in Form E.R.I for the month of May, 2007 submitted in the Range office on 11-6-2007 (Copy enclosed). As the goods was cleared as such therefore the entry of all the materials cleared vide the invoice in question were entered in the R.G.I. register which was audited by the audit party as evident from the copy of R.G.I. register enclosed. It was further added that only Rs. 3440809/-. (33429589/- B.E.D, + Rs, 41220/- Edu., Cess) were lying in the R.G. 23A Pt. II whereas the assessee has paid a sum of Rs. 3646002/- on the aforesaid invoices i.e. a sum of Rs. 175193/- had been paid from the PLA. (xvii) Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Hiren Aluminium Ltd. vs. CCE - 2009 (92) RLT 706. 12. He contended that cross-examination of the commercial person was denied. II whereas the assessee has paid a sum of Rs. 3646002/- on the aforesaid invoices i.e. a sum of Rs. 175193/- had been paid from the PLA. (xvii) Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Hiren Aluminium Ltd. vs. CCE - 2009 (92) RLT 706. 12. He contended that cross-examination of the commercial person was denied. In that view of the matter, he relied on the following decisions of the Supreme Court : (i) Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II - 2015 (324) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) wherein it has been held as under : 5. According to us, not allowing the Assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the Assessee was adversely affected. It is to be borne in mind that the order of the Commissioner was based upon the statements given by the aforesaid two witnesses. Even when the Assessee disputed the correctness of the statements and wanted to cross-examine, the Adjudicating Authority did not grant this opportunity to the Assessee. It would be pertinent to note that in the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority he has specifically mentioned that such an opportunity was sought by the Assessee. However, no such opportunity was granted and the aforesaid plea is not even dealt with by the Adjudicating Authority. As far as the Tribunal is concerned, we find that rejection of this plea is totally untenable. The Tribunal has simply stated that cross-examination of the said dealers could not have brought out any material which would not be in possession of the Appellant themselves to explain as to why their ex-factory prices remain static. It was not for the Tribunal to have guess work as to for what purposes the Appellant wanted to cross-examine those dealers and what extraction the Appellant wanted from them. 6. As mentioned above, the Appellant had contested the truthfulness of the statements of these two witnesses and wanted to discredit their testimony for which purpose it wanted to avail the opportunity of cross-examination. 6. As mentioned above, the Appellant had contested the truthfulness of the statements of these two witnesses and wanted to discredit their testimony for which purpose it wanted to avail the opportunity of cross-examination. That apart, the Adjudicating Authority simply relied upon the price list as maintained at the depot to determine the price for the purpose of levy of excise duty. Whether the goods were, in fact, sold to the said dealers/witnesses at the price which is mentioned in the price list itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above. We may also point out that on an earlier occasion when the matter came before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 2216 of 2000, order dated 17-32005 [2005 (187) E.L.T. A33 (S.C.)] was passed remitting the case back to the Tribunal with the directions to decide the appeal on merits giving its reasons for accepting or rejecting the submissions. (ii) In Commissioner vs. Shakti Roll Cold Strips - (2008) 229 E.L.T. 661 wherein it has been held as under : 2. Aggrieved against the order dated 13-9-2004, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order dated 15-12-2004 allowed the appeal of the assessee observing that the Adjudicating Authority has passed the order only on the ground that the vehicles used for transporting the inputs were not capable of transporting the goods in question and as such, it has been presumed that the Modvat credit has been taken without actual receipt of the inputs and that the said ground is not sufficient to deny the Modvat credit to the appellant by presuming that no inputs have been received by the appellant. 5. We have heard Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Learned Counsel for the Revenue and perused the record. However, we find no force in the contention raised by him. The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the inputs supplied by the respondent were duly received by the manufacturer and were used in the goods manufactured, which were cleared on payment of duty. The Tribunal also found that the Department has not been able to prove that any other alternative raw material was received and used in the final products. The Tribunal also found that the Department has not been able to prove that any other alternative raw material was received and used in the final products. The Tribunal also held that the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the respondent were not challenged by the Departmental Representative before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also noted that the findings of the Commissioner clearly established that RT-12 returns have been assessed finally by the Range Officer which contains all the documents including in the invoices under dispute on the basis of which the Modvat credit has been availed and utilized and that payments for the purchase of the inputs have been made through cheque/demand draft. 6. Thus, there is no merit in the appeal as no question of law, much less substantial, arises from the order of the Tribunal wherein pure findings of fact have been recorded in favour of the respondent. Against the aforesaid judgment, SLP was also dismissed in Commissioner vs. Shakti Roll Cold Strips Pvt. Ltd. - 2009 (242) E.L.T. A83 (S.C.) . 13. Taking into consideration, the case of the assessee that closure certificate was issued by the Department of Gurgaon and the same was accepted by the Sales Tax Department of the State, the view taken by the Tribunal is correct and having accepted the closure certificate of Gurgaon Unit, it will not be appropriate to reopen the same almost after four years of issuing notice which raises a serious doubt. 14. In that view of the matter, the issue is required to be answered in favour of assessee against the Department. 15. The appeal stands dismissed.