9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri H. K. Pandey, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER PER CORAM The Respondent assessee is a manufacturer of Iron and steel products. Their factory premises was searched by the Central Preventive Unit and some documents were recovered. Taking the figures as mentioned in the Furnance Charge Sheets as final/finished excisable product and comparing the same with the Daily Stock Account (DSA) of the respondent during the period from 01/07/2010 to 31/08/2011. It was alleged that the respondent has short accounted a quantity of 674.402 MT of finished goods which have been removed clandestinely without payment of Central Excise Duties amounting to ₹ 37,74,799/-. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y RG-I Register. Therefore, two subsequent stand that the Furnace Charge Sheet reflects the record of intermediate goods is purely after thought. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions:- (i) Tejwal Dyestuff Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Ahmedabad [2007 (216) E. L. T. 310 (Tri.-Ahmd.). (ii) Commr. of C. Ex., Madras Vs. Systems Components Pvt. Ltd. [2004 (165) ELT 136 (S.C.)] 5. The Ld. advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent company and Shri Subhasis Banerjee argued that the Furnace Charge Sheet which have been relied upon by the department in their grounds of appeal, is not authenticate document to establish the actual production of finished go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing the appeals before him, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal exonerated the appellants from all the liabilities and extended consequential benefits and set aside the Order-in-Original dated 25/09/2013. It is quite appalling to observe that though the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dated 31/5/2016 has taken note of the Order-in-Appeal as disposed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order dated 22/12/2014, he has proceeded to decide the appeal which was already decided by an OIA dt. 22/12/2014. The only mistake in the Order-in-Appeal dated 22/12/2014 is that only one OIA No. was allotted instead of two. For this small mistake, a corrigendum order would have sufficed but over enthusiastic Commissioner (Appeals) has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
