9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent: Mr. Marwah Pahwa, Advocate. ORDER PER: S.K. MOHANTY The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 09.06.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Delhi-I. The grievance of Revenue is that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not legal and proper, inasmuch as, the respondent No.3 was not a dummy unit of respondent No.1 and that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the statement, no other corroborative documentary evidences were produced by the Department to support such stand. I also find that in order to hold that the Respondent No.3 is not a dummy unit of Respondent No.1, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has examined the documentary evidences, such as, Income Tax Returns, Sales Tax Returns and Bank Account etc. maintained by the Respondent No.3. In view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner (Appeals) upon perusal of the documents available before him, the conclusions arrived at in extending the benefit of trading goods is proper and justified. I also find that by extending the benefit of SSI Exemption to the Respondent No.1, in terms of Notification No.8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 for the year 2004-05, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
