9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opportunity to the Appellant to represent qua those investigations' reports. Details of total sales and duty liability for the respective years was provided by the appellant vide letter dated 15.02.2018. However, Commissioner (Appeals) was still of the opinion that no documents enabling necessary verifications were enclosed by the Appellant with the said letter. This information as provided by the Appellant got verified with respect to Annexure A to E of the show cause notice, the invoices were still found lacking to substantiate the claim of duplication of demand. However, the information of stock transfer from Delhi was not in dispute. The documents were still observed insufficient to verify as to whether the said stock transf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iced that clearances of Appellant include that of M/s Unipack Solutions, G-I, 465 RIICO Industrial area, Chopanki Bhiwadi being carried out from the said appellant s premises only. The said premises of M/s Unipack Solutions were also got searched and no manufacturing activity was found there. The proprietor of Appellant Shri Vinod Juneja, on being enquired, acknowledged that manufacturing activity of the Appellant as well as of M/s Unipack Solutions is carried out in the premises of Appellant. The manufacturing activity is also carried out at another company of the same proprietor namely M/s Unipack B-58C, Maya Puri, Phase -I, New Delhi. The department observed that the value of clearances of all the three units was more than 1.5 crore duri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the hearing. 3.1 The said plea is prayed to be accepted while deciding the impugned appeal, on the ground that settled principal of law can be raised at any stage of the proceeding. Learned Counsel has further impressed upon the documents as that of VAT 47 form declarations made to the Rajasthan State, VAT Department, to corroborate that all the finished goods/items/corrugated boxes as were cleared, were not manufactured by either Unipack Bhiwadi unit or by Unipack Solutions, Bhiwadi unit, but were purchased also reflecting the trading of finished goods. It is submitted that the value thereof has also been taken into accounts in the aggregate manufacturing turnover of both the units which is liable to be excluded. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Annexure A to E of the show cause notice. However, Commissioner (Appeals) observing that some other documents as that of invoices are still lacking so as to substantiate the Appellant s clearances that the matter has rightly been remanded for the limited purpose of the said verification. Thus, there is no infirmity in the order. The case law as relied upon by the Appellant is submitted to not to be applicable to the facts of the present case. The Appeal is, therefore, prayed to be dismissed. 5. After hearing both the Parties and perusing the entire record, we are of the opinion as follows: There is no dispute that the appellant is having two units at Bhiwadi and one unit at Delhi. The entire manufacturi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant got verified with respect to Annexure A to E of the show cause notice, the invoices were still found lacking to substantiate the claim of duplication of demand. However, the information of stock transfer from Delhi was not in dispute. The documents were still observed insufficient to verify as to whether the said stock transfer was not included in Bhiwadi sale for computation of duty. It is with these observations that the matter has been remanded for the aforesaid limited verification. The issue of show cause notice being time barred and that of imposition of penalty has been adjudicated against the Appellant. 7. We further observe that Appellant instead of providing the noticed shortcoming/lack of documents so a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
