9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Per: S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 21.2.2012 passed by the Commissioner (A) wherein the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of excisable goods falling under Chapter Heading No. 27, 28, 34, 35, 38 & 39 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are availing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without considering the evidence on record produced by the appellant. She further submitted that the said variance between the balance sheet and the ER-1 return is on account of migration in ERP software and merger of companies, etc., which was brought to the notice of the department through series ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the appellant. The unit of the appellant has been audited several times and no objection has been raised by the Department earlier and therefore the extended period of limitation is not invokable. For this submission, she relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore vs. Pragathi Concrete Products (P) Ltd.: 2015 (322) ELT 819 (SC). 5. On the other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned Commissioner (A) has also observed that instead of reconciling the balance sheet amount and the ER-1 return amount, the appellant contended that the duty was due to migration of accounting software. As per the assessee, the assessee has produced series of correspondences before the authorities below but none has considered those correspondences and the reasons given by the appellant for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
