2014 (6) TMI 617

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he offer made by the applicant is sufficient for hearing of the appeal - stay granted partly.
Mr. S.S. Kang And Mr. Sahab Singh, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri S.S. Gupta, C.A., Shri Vinay Sejpal, Advocate, Shri D.H. Nadkarni, Advocate, Smt. Deepali kamble, Advocate. For the Respondent : Shri A. Shah Additional Commissioner (AR) M/s D.M. Durando Deputy Commissioner (A.R) PER : S.S. Kang 1. Heard both sides. 2. The common issues are involved therefore applications are for waiver of dues are being taken up together. Applicant M/s Indian Smelting & Refining Co. Ltd. filed this application for waiver of pre - deposit of duty of Rs. 1,51,62,647/ - . Interest and penalty. Other applicants filed application for waiver f pre - deposit of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vidence the demand was onfirmed and penalties were imposed. 5. The contention of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the M/s. Indian Smelting & Refining Co. td. is that the inputs in question were received in the factory which were duly entered into statutory records which was produced before the adjudicating authority. The payments were made through banking challan hence it cannot be said that goods were received in the factory, the contention is that the uthorized signatory of M/s Dhuleva Trading Corpn. the trader in his statement submitted that the material was supplied to the manufacturing unit. Only the proprietor of M/s. Nakoda Trading Corpn. denying the supply of the material to the manufacturing unit. The contention is that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... und that inputs were not received in the factory of production and credit has been availed on the strength of duty payin g documents. On the contrary in para 52.2 of the adjudication order after taking into consideration the evidence produced by the manufacturing unit the adjudicating authority held that evidence clearly shows that the material is received by M/s. Indian Sme lting & refining Co Ltd. The contention of applicant is that there are contrary finding in the adjudication order it is not clear whether the Revenue is denying the credit on the ground that material is not received in the factory or the same material is not received in the factory. In these circumstances, the contention is that demand is not sustainable. 8. Revenue re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X