9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -warehousing these goods which were cleared against ARE-3s - Revenue contended that since there was only paper transaction and no physical movements of the goods had taken place in the instant case, the re-warehousing certificates furnished by the respondents were found to be bogus/ fake – Held that:- There are no such allegations in the SCN that there was only paper transaction and no physical mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to another 100% EOU, for further use. The respondent herein is also 100% EOU. The show cause notice issued to the respondents was on the ground, that the respondent had not produced re-warehousing certificate for the ARE-3s as annexed to the show cause notice. The respondent before the lower authorities had produced the evidence of re-warehousing these goods which were cleared against ARE-3s. Hen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cular No. 579/16/2001-CX dated 26.6.2001, therefore duty on the same was demanded along with interest and penalty. I have also perused the impugned order-in-original and find that the lower authority has dropped the proceedings initiated under the said SCN on the basis of the letter dated 25.8.2004 of the Superintendent, Range-II, Navasari under which it had been reported that the goods in questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y no cognizance thereof can be taken in the matter. The contention of the appellants can not be considered at this stage for setting aside the impugned order-in-original since there are no such allegations in the SCN that there was only paper transaction and no physical movements of the goods taken place In the instant case and the re-warehousing certificates furnished by the respondents were bogu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was issued to the respondent has been correctly held as incorrect by both the lower authorities. 6. We find that the order of the first appellate authority is well reasoned and does not suffer from any infirmity and we uphold the same. 7. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. Cross objection filed by the assessee being in support of impugned order in appeal, also get di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
