TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 937X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 9-6-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Shri M.A. Narayana, Advocate, For the Appellant Assistant Commissioner (AR), For the Respondent ORDER Per: SS GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 22.09.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has modified the order passed by the Additional Commissioner and set aside the penalties imposed under Rule 25 and 26 but rejected the appeal of the appellant. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a proprietary concern engaged in the manufacture of Control Relay panels, Low Tension distribution boxes, Annunciator panels metering boxes falling under Chapter sub-headings 8535, 9040 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f natural justice, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the appeal of the appellant Hence the present appeal. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without considering the evidence on record. He further submitted that both the authorities below have not considered two invoices i.e. Invoice No.18 dated 25.02.2005 and No.19 dated 25.03.2005 as the said invoices were cancelled and no goods were cleared under these two invoices. He further submitted that the cancellation of tw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd as per the details available, the appellant vide invoice no.18 dated 25.02.05 has cleared goods valued at ₹ 4,80,900/- to M/s. Nagarjuna Const Co. Limited, Hyderabad in terms of purchase order no.NCC/APDRP-KPTCL/1559/03-04 dated 21.02.04 and vide invoice No.019 dated 25.03.05 the appellant has cleared goods valued at ₹ 3,11,800 - to M/s. ABB Limited Bangalore - 560 052 in terms of purchase order reference 750001957 dated 09.02.05. The proprietor himself has signed these invoices as authorized signatory. I do not find any remarks made on these invoices regarding non clearance of goods due to cancellation of purchase orders as contended by the appellant. 12. I find the appellant had not produced any correspondences receive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
