9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 844X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee F-Filters (P) Ltd., New Delhi during the relevant period and against the disputed invoices. In absence of evidence to rebut the charges labeled in the demand notice, the findings recorded by the authorities below needs no interference. In the result, the order of the ld. Commissioner(Appeals) is upheld and the Appeal is rejected. - Decided against assessee. - Appeal No.EA-929/11 - ORDER NO.FO/A/75047/2016 - Dated:- 7-1-2016 - Dr. D.M.Misra, Member(Judicial) For the Petitioner : Shri A.K.Banerjee, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri S.S.Chatterjee, Supdt.(AR) ORDER Per Dr. D.M.Misra. 1. This is an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.237/Kol-III/2011 dated 09.08.2011 passed by the Commissioner(Appeal-I) of Centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ler to the Govt. Account. In spite of providing enough opportunities, the appellant did not produce those documents in the de novo proceeding. Consequently, the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand with interest and imposed equivalent penalty. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred appeal before the ld.Commissioner(Appeals), who in turn upheld the de novo order and rejected the appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 3. The ld.Advocate Shri A.K.Banerjee for the appellant submits that there has been gross violation of principles of natural justice as they were noither supplied with all the documents nor their submissions advanced during the course of hearing was not considered. Therefore, the order is bad in law and conseque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... requested cross-examination of witnesses before the authorities below. In other words, the appellant failed to establish through cogent evidences that the materials mentioned in the respective invoices were received and the duty amount mentioned in the said invoices were also paid to the treasury by the input supplier. Now, before me also, the ld.Advocate for the appellant could not place any of these documents except Xerox copy of one demand draft of ₹ 1.00 Lakh drawn in favour of M/s.Three F-Filters (P) Ltd. dated 08.03.2001, without establishing that this amount related to the inputs purchased from M/s.Three F-Filters (P) Ltd., New Delhi during the relevant period and against the disputed invoices. In absence of evidence to rebut t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
