9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent alleging that they had taken credit without receipt of goods. The demand was originally confirmed by the original adjudicating authority against which the appellant approached the Settlement Commission which settled the matter with duty amount of Rs. 28,36,864/- and penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the respondents and penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh on Shri Rajesh. The respondent challenged the said order before the Hon'ble High Court which set aside the said order of the Settlement Commission and remanded the matter back to Settlement Commissioner. The Settlement Commission heard the matter and remanded the case back to the jurisdictional Central Excise Officers. The matter was adjudicated again by the Additional Commissioner and the demand w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the goods were not received by the respondent and therefore, the credit was sought to be denied. He pointed out that the Commissioner has accepted that the respondent had taken credit in respect of 12 invoices wrongly. He argued that in this case, the respondent had shown that the vehicle has travelled between Delhi to Jalna four times within two days. He pointed out that having upheld this demand he could have considered that the respondents were in practice of availing credit without receiving goods. He pointed out that in respect of invoices where the demands have been set aside by the Commissioner following evidence was produced before him: (i) Transport lines in which the goods have been claimed to have been transported are non- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nments. 5. Cross objection filed by the respondents challenged authorization filed by revenue as an authorization without any reasoning. It is seen that the authorization is not a single page authorization but attached to it is Annexure-A which contains the ground of appeal. Thus the objection raised in the cross objection is not correct and hence dismissed. 5.1 The second objection raised by the respondent relates non-supply of certain documents. It is seen that the said objection was not raised before the original adjudicating authority and first appellate authority. In these circumstances, it is not open to the respondent to raise the said objection before the Tribunal. The appeal of Revenue is consequently allowed and the impugned ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
