9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The assessee has come in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 389/2017 dated 21.11.2017 passed by the Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise (Appeals-I), Chennai, against the sustenance of demand on account of alleged clearance of goods without payment of tax, apart from appropriate interest and penalty. 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, Ld. Adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate further submitted that the Original Authority had exceeded jurisdiction in confirming the demand in the de novo proceedings, beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice as well as the scope of remand Order by adopting a strange reason alleging insertions or corrections. 4. Per contra, Ld. AR supported the findings of the lower authorities. 5. I have considered the rival contentions and perused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoices through which goods were supplied and returned were accounted for, apart from various other documents. 7. Ld. Advocate also pointed out that the allegation of the Revenue of non-submission of certain documents/invoices does not merit consideration since the monthly return of the assessee in ER-1 for respective months would invariably include these invoices. She further contended that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals) has also therefore erred in upholding the same which is unsustainable. For this reason alone, I am of the view that the impugned Order is not sustainable for which reason I set aside the same and consequently, the ground of appeal with regard to demand of duty of Rs. 1,05,130/- is allowed with consequential benefits, if any. 9. The appeal is therefore allowed. (Pronounced in open court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
