9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1015X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Petitioner : Shri Jatin Mahajan, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Kanu Verma Kumar, Authorized Representative (DR) ORDER Per. B. Ravichandran :- These three appeals are against the common order on the same issue and, hence, taken up together for disposal. The main appellant (M/s Teracom Ltd.) are engaged in the manufacture of aerial bunched cable liable to Central Excise duty. The unit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inspection seal. They are clearing these goods without payment of duty from their Salodipura Godown in Rajasthan. However, documents were fabricated to show as if these goods were manufactured in Pant Nagar unit of the main appellant. The Original Authority confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 3,91,569/-; confiscated the seized goods and allowed them to be redeemed on payment of Rs. 10,00,000/-; imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thout jurisdiction and it is not sustainable. 3. The learned AR submitted that the investigation started with the seizure of goods, which was in the name of the appellant unit. The follow up investigation indicated that these goods were not manufactured and cleared from Pant Nagar, Uttrakhand. The appellants procured these items elsewhere in Rajasthan and, as such, the notice for denial of exempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant did not take this objection before the lower Authorities. However, since this is a basic legal issue affecting the very legality of the proceedings the same has to be examined by the Tribunal for a decision. Revenue is not able to place on record any legal authority empowering the officers working in Rajasthan to initiate proceedings against the appellant unit in Uttrakhand to determine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
