9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit could not be disallowed - order of the original authority to the extent of demanding duty to the tune of Rs. 70,935/- alongwith interest alone restored - E/1632/2009-SM - - - Dated:- 5-1-2011 - Mr. M.Veeraiyan, J. Present for the Appellant: Shri K.P.Singh, SDR Present for the Respondent: Shri Rupender Singh, Advocate PER: M.VEERAIYAN This is an appeal by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No.77/CE/LDH/2009 dated 23.03.2009., by which the order of the original authority confirming the demand of Rs.1,49,329/- by disallowing the credit, alongwith interest and imposing penalty was set aside. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the registered dealer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on M/s.Amit Steel Traders of Mandi Gobindgarh, and it is not known that the said M/s.Amit Steel Traders of Mandi Gobindgarh filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals)). The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the original authority holding that in light of the evidence like GRs and the octroi receipts , the material has been duly received by them in their unit. He also relied upon the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana in the case of Neepaz Steel Ltd. and others reported in 2008 (230) ELT 218 (P H) and in the case of CCE, Chandigarh vs.Shakti Rolled Cold Strips (P) Ltd. reported in 2008 (229) ELT 661 (P H). 4. Learned SDR reiterated the grounds of appeal and submitted that the SLP has been filed aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered the submissions made from both sides and perused the records. The registered dealer has claimed that he has supplied the goods on ex-godown basis and that he was not aware as to whether they were diverted and if so to whom and where it was diverted. The materials transported were slab cuttings. Enquiry conducted with the transport authority revealed that one of the vehicles with No.PB-10S-0601 mentioned in the invoice No.222 dated 10.10.2003 was that of oil tanker which obviously could not be utilized for transportation of slab cuttings. Admittedly the respondents claimed that they have paid the freight in respect of this vehicle also. They have not been able to identify the transporter or the driver in respect of the vehicle which wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
