9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferred by the assessee under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short, 'the Act') for setting aside orders passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 22-3-2005, Annexure A-12 and 11-8-2006, Annexure A-15. 2. On 25-7-2000, the representatives of the Excise department intercepted a tempo containing coated textile fabrics without covering document. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firmed the finding and rejected the plea that the goods were being sent for job work of embossing railway monogram or that the factory of the assessee was closed. Plea of the assessee that the goods were not marketable was also rejected. It was observed that there was no covering document to cover the movement of goods. However, the appellate authority reduced the redemption fine and penalty. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is non-speaking and illegal being violative of principles of natural justice? (iv) Whether the department who has not admittedly sent the samples withdrawn from the goods for laboratory test has failed to discharge the onus on them to lead evidence about marketability of the product? (v) Whether the impugned order passed by the authorities/respondents are illegal?" 6. We are not satisfied t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot, however, be said that in the present case, the product was not leviable or that the department had not discharged the burden leviability. The said burden can be held to have been discharged from attendant circumstances and inferences from facts on record. In absence of finding being shown to be perverse, no substantial question arises.
8. Dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
