9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 563X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apatnam who purchased the goods from manufacturer of goods i.e. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd., Visakhapatnam. It has further been alleged that M/s. A.S. Traders would be first stage dealer and Maheshwari Udyog would second stage dealer. So, invoice issued by Maheshwari Udyog on the basis of manufacturer’s invoice is invalid document. A show cause notice was issued proposing demand of duty of Rs. 42,668/- and imposition of penalty along with interest. Original authority dropped the show cause notice. Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby adjudication order was set aside. Hence, the appellants filed this appeal. Held that- no dispute regarding particulars of duty paid on goods declared in invoice. Invoice contained both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby adjudication order was set aside. Hence, the appellants filed this appeal. 2. Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants submits that there is no dispute that the goods were received by M/s. Maheswari Udyog directly from the manufacturer M/s. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. and issued the invoice as registered dealer. He further submits that original authority dropped the proceedings after examining the report of the Suptd., Central Excise. He also submits that Maheswari Udyog purchased the goods from A.S. Traders has no relevancy. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Coimbatore v. S.S.P.E. Cotton Mills (P) Ltd., reported in 1999 (106) E.L.T. 102 (Tribunal). 3. Lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l be admissible on the invoices issued by M/s. Maheswari Udyog." 5. Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the goods having been purchased from A.S. Steel Traders, who are not registered with the department Maheswari Udyog does not attain the stage of second stage dealer and, therefore, invoice issued by Maheswari Udyog is invalid document. It is seen that the Superintendent of Central Excise in this respect stated that Maheswari Udyog directly received the goods from manufacturer under the cover of proper duty paying documents. There is no dispute regarding particulars of duty paid on goods as declared in the invoice. In the case of S.S.P.E. Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. (supra) the Tribunal held that there is no dispute that the duty paid goods a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
