9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut of the raw material and sold it clandestinely - appellant pleads that they have not been given opportunity for cross-examination of the persons whose statements were relied upon in this regard by the department - matter is remanded to original adjudicating authority for fresh decision after giving opportunity to the appellant for cross-examination - matter on remand. Appeal allowed in part by way of remand. - E/3927/2010-SM - A/56426/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 17-8-2017 - Mr. Ashok K. Arya, Member (Technical) Shri Kumar Vikram, Advocate, Ms. Rinky Arora, Advocate - for the appellant Shri Vibhav Sengraj, D.R. - for the respondent ORDER Per: Ashok K. Arya M/s Indo Alusys Industries Ltd. is in appeal against t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods were cleared under six fake/parallel invoices. In this regard, there is no defence available with the appellant. In case of confirmation of duty demand of ₹ 9,80,772/-, the impugned order has observed as under: As regards demand of duty of ₹ 9,80,772/- is concerned, it is the case of the Department that the appellant has removed 57.3056 MT of finished goods without payment of duty under the cover of six invoices which were issued parallel to the regular invoices issued by them. I find that Shri M.S. Subramaniam, General Manager of the appellant admitted in his statement dated 17.1.2008 recorded under Section 14 of the Act that these invoices have been issued by M/s Mahavir Aluminium Ltd., Bhiwadi as these invoices h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. Bhiwadi and delivered at proper place. Similarly, the owner of trucks used for transportation of goods as mentioned in invoice no. 1193 dated 22.11.2003, 1225 dated 27.11.2003, 1448 dated 6.1.2004 and 1503 dated 19.11.2004 has also admitted about transportation of goods from M/s Mahavir Aluminium Ltd., Bhiwadi to the consignee mentioned in the invoices. The appellant has not been able to give any evidence to counter the facts given in the impugned order quoted above. Consequently, the impugned order confirming the demand of ₹ 9,80,772/- is sustained. 4.1 In case of demand of ₹ 19,96,320/- along with interest, which is on account of finished goods manufactured by using raw material received by the appellant and whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
