9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded in the Adjudication Order - no evidence was found to establish the charge of clandestine removal of goods - in any event, the failure to observe the procedure of removal of repairing goods cannot be treated as charge of clandestine removal - E/989/2006-SM - 961/2008-SM (BR)/ (PB), - Dated:- 8-4-2008 - Shri P.K. Das, Member (J) Shri Sumit Kumar, DR, for the Appellant. Shri V.R. Set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he shortage of inputs. The Adjudicating Authority dropped the demand of duty on the basis of Gate Register and confirmed the demand of Rs. 2,949/- on the shortage of inputs and imposed penalty of Rs. 500/- under Rule 173Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was rejected. Hence the Revenue filed appeal before this Tribunal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the machines and no Modvat credit was availed and the goods were received by them for the purpose of repairing. It has been alleged in the show cause notice that Shri A.N. Chatterjee failed to produce any documentary evidence in any nature in support of his contention. 4. It is seen from the Adjudication, Order that the Respondents had given detailed explanation in respect of each item for r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew of this, I do not see merit in the Revenue Application and the same stands rejected." 5. The learned DR relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Aditya Steel Industries v. CCE, Hyderabadreported in 1996 (84) E.L.T. 229 and Bharat Plast v. CCE, Valsad reported in 2004 (168) E.L.T 204. In the case of Aditya Steel Industries (supra), there was document of double transport of go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tated the details of repairing job in reply to Show Cause Notice. Both the authorities below verified the statement of repairing job and thereafter, there is no material for charge of clandestine removal. The Revenue in the Grounds of Appeal also contended that the Respondents failed to observe the procedure for movement of excisable goods for the purpose of repairing/return as provided under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
