9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1454X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods transferred to the depot are liable to duty or not. The department has not brought any evidence on record to prove suppression of facts on the part of the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/23876/2014-SM - 22466/2017 - Dated:- 20-10-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Ravi Shankar Chander Kumar, Advocates, Shri N Anand, Adv. - For the Appellant Shri Mandeep Sharan, AR - For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 30.09.2014 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 during the scrutiny of their returns in For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order confirming the demand, interest and penalty proposed in the show cause notice. 4. Aggrieved by the order-in-original, appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (A) who rejected the appeal of the appellant and hence the present appeal. 5. Heard both the parties and perused records. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the provisions of section 11 A (2) of the Act. He further submitted that in the present case, the appellant have voluntarily paid the duty of excise on the goods transferred to their own depot and had paid interest as well much before the issue of show cause notice. He further submitted that when duty along with intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perusal of records, I find that the appellant voluntarily paid the duty along with interest before the issue of show cause notice. Further, I also find that the appellant has disclosed all these facts in their ER 3 returns and the department has scrutinized the ER 3 returns and then alleged that there is suppression of facts on the part of the appellant. I also find that the appellant had a doubt as to whether the goods transferred to the depot are liable to duty or not. The department has not brought any evidence on record to prove suppression of facts on the part of the appellant. Rather, the department has made out the case only on the basis of scrutiny of ER 3 returns which shows that there is no suppression with intention to evade paym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
