9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merely held that the appellant has failed to produce the evidence regarding the quantum of manufacturing and trading during the impugned period. As the order of Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) is without any basis, therefore, the order passed by the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) is set aside and the order of the adjudicating authority is affirmed dropping the proceedings against the appellant which was passed after verification of the records produced by the appellant during the course of adjudication as well as thereafter. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for benefit of SSI exemption Notification No.8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 - the appellant is not liable to pay any duty. Refund claim - HELD THAT:- As no demand is sustainable against the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifferent suppliers/manufacturers and dispatched the said goods as such being as trading items. The appellants also purchased some electrical hardware fittings like stay set, pins, boxes, bow etc. from different suppliers from the open market and supplied the same as bought-out items on re-sale basis to their customers. A search was conducted on 09.08.2006 and on physical verification, it was found that the appellant was having machines and manufacturing the said goods. It was further found that the appellant is a proprietor-ship concern and Shri Krishna Kumar Rathi is the authorized signatory and looking after the activity of the said firm. On the date of search, the documents were seized and stock was verified, but no discrepancy was found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... items. In remand proceedings, the adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings against the appellant. After dropping proceedings agasint the appellant, the appellant filed refund claim of the amount of Rs.10.00 Lakhs deposited during the course of investigation. The order of dropping the proceedings against the appellant was challenged by the Revenue before the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) and Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) set aside the order of adjudication and confirmed the demand against the appellant. Against the said order, the appellant is in appeal in Excise Appeal No.76229 of 2016. 4. After dropping the proceedings against the appellant, the appellant filed refund claim. The said refund claim was rejected as barred by limitation, therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement of finished goods, their balance sheet, purchase invoices and sale invoices. In that circumstances, the order of the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) is not sustainable as the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) has not considered the documents recovered during the course of investigation and merely held that the appellant has failed to produce the evidence regarding the quantum of manufacturing and trading during the impugned period. As the order of Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) is without any basis, therefore, the order passed by the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) is set aside and the order of the adjudicating authority is affirmed dropping the proceedings against the appellant which was passed after verification of the records produced by the appellant during t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
