9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal Order Nos. 252 to 254 of 2004, dated 30-1-2004 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore (for short CESTAT) raising the following substantial question of law for adjudication : Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT, Bangalore was correct in allowing the appellant to take modvat credit on forged/fabricated documents/Bills of Entries under Rules 57A and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the impugned final order giving a finding that no role was played by the 1st respondent company or any of its officers in clearing the goods and thus set aside the Order-in-Original. Being aggrieved by the Final Order, dated 30-1-2004, the Department has preferred the present appeal. Heard Ms. P. Sarada, learned Standing Counsel for Customs and Central Excise appearing on behalf of the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the judgment dated 9-4-2014 in C.E.A. No. 54 of 2005. He has also drawn our attention to the explanation submitted by the respondents wherein it has been specifically stated that the demand drafts drawn in favour of the Collector, Customs, Chennai were further drawn on account of M/s. Hetero Drugs Limited. This aspect of the matter is not specifically denied in the order-in-original itself a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he present appeal. From the judgment delivered in C.E.A. No. 54 of 2005, it is found that the facts of the case on hand were taken into consideration and we do not find any distinction. In the absence of a specific question raised with respect to any perversity of fact and based on the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Department, the impugned final order cannot be interfere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
