9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nufacture of find products, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeal). Accordingly I uphold the order in appeal and reject the appeal of the appellant. - E/1117/2011 - - - Dated:- 25-3-2013 - Shri Sahab Singh, J. For the Appellant: Shri Alok Arora, Adv. For the Respondent: Shri R.K. Verma, A.R JUDGEMENT Per Sahab Singh: This appeal filed by M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how Cause Notice was issued for denying the Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 1,97,363/- along with interest and also for imposition of penalty under section 11AC. Show Cause Notice was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner on 27.01.2006 against the appellant. Appeal filed by the appellants before the Commissioner Appeal was also rejected. The appellant filed the appeal before this Tribunal and T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lers and also of some of non-existent vehicles. He also states that the appellant Sh. R.K. Gupta had submitted that in all the cases tempo number is same in the purchase invoice and sale invoice and the transaction was genuine. He submits that all the evidences produced by the department do not prove any case against appellant. 4. Shri R.K. Verma Ld. DR submitts that in the previous round Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed under invoice No. 241 258 in her statement has clearly stated that she is not aware of the transportation of any goods of M/s. R.K. Enterprises. I also find that appellant has not challenged this order of the Tribunal. Commissioner (Appeal) has held that burden of proof that goods were received and used for manufacture of final product lies on the appellant and same has not been discharged by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
