9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 797X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l issued in violation of the prescribed procedure by solely relying upon the purported signature of the departmental officers, whereas they did not consider the substantial fact of the investigations which revealed that the vehicle purportedly used by the respondent for transportation of goods under ARE-3A No. 10 was utilized by some other party at the material time - Held that:- Tribunal conclude ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the order of the Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( the Tribunal for short) dated 3-9-2012 proposing following substantial question of law for our consideration :- Whether the Tribunal was legal and correct in upholding the Order-in-Appeal issued in violation of the prescribed procedure by solely relying upon the purported signature of the departmental officers, whereas they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Excise Rules, 2002. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand along with interest and penalty on the ground that the consignee recipient had not informed Superintendent in-charge with regard to such receipt of goods and the original copy of the warehousing certificate also was not adduced. It was also of the opinion that the goods were diverted to some other place with a sole intentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he export oriented units had also signed of having received the same from the consignee at Calcutta, the Tribunal did not entertain the appeal of the Department. Therefore, present appeal raising aforementioned substantial question of law. 6. We find that the Tribunal concluded on the basis of the material that was made available to it. It also rightly pointed out that there was no claim on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
