9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 730X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and Scrap, further, duty was not required to be demanded. Accordingly, on the basis of assumption and presumption it was alleged that respondent no.2 has not received the goods. Accordingly, I find that whole investigation is faulty and the show cause notices were issued to the respondent without producing any evidence on records. - Demand set aside - Decided in favor of asssessee. - E/1224-1225/2012-(SM) - Final Order No. A/61014-61015/2016-SM(BR) - Dated:- 6-7-2016 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Sh. G.M. Sharma, AR for the appellant Sh. Sudhir Malhotra. Advocate for the respondent ORDER The Revenue has filled these appeals against the impugned order quashing the proceedings initiated against the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest and to impose penalty on them and to deny cenvat credit of duty paid by the M/s Sadashiv Casting P. Ltd.(respondent no. 2). The photocopies of the invoices issued by M/s Sadashiv Structural Pvt. Ltd. to allege that only invoices have been manufactured and no such goods have been manufactured. The show cause notices were adjudicated and the demand of duty on the alleged shortage was confirmed along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty was imposed and cenvat credit was denied to M/s Sadashiv Casting P. Ltd. consequently, duty was demanded alonwith interest and equivalent amount of penalty was imposed. The adjudication order was challenged by both the respondents before the Ld. Commissioner (A) who examined the issue in details ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent and without considering the said reply submitted by them while issuing the show cause notice alleging clandestine removal of goods by respondent no.1 and cenvat credit taken by respondent no.2 by invoking extended period of limitation. In fact, the respondent has replied in September 2008 itself that there was no shortage and they have cleared goods like waste and scrap on payment of duty but without considering these explanations given by the respondent, the show cause notices were issued to both the respondent which is not sustainable and the said issue has been dealt by the ld. Commissioner (A) in the impugned order, therefore the appeal filed by the Revenue are to be dismissed. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lenged by the respondent before the Ld. Commissioner (A) who in the absence of any corroborative evidence produced by the Revenue had relied on the explanation given by the respondent in reply to the letter of the range superintendent and it is the positive evidence on record that waste and scrap has been cleared by the respondent no.1 on payment of duty. In these circumstances, the ld. Commissioner (A) has rightly set aside the adjudication order. 8. During the course of argument the Ld. AR relied on various jurisdictional pronouncements Gulabchand Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. (supra) . The facts of the said case are not relevant to the case in hand as in that case the vehicle carrying finished goods was intercepted and it was found that veh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
