Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2019 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 221 - HC - Central ExciseClandestine removal - “Sitar” and “Sikandar Brand” gutkha - change in the name of consignors - grounds for challenge taken by the appellants are that there is only a slight change in the name of different consignors mentioned in the LRs brought on record, but their addresses are same, therefore, they are same business entities - HELD THAT:- All the companies mentioned in the recovered Lorry Receipts are different entities, therefore, the respondents cannot be held liable for any Lorry Receipts, which is not related to it - While deciding the dispute between the parties, learned CESTAT has not opined or held that the Lorry Receipts recovered during the search are not admissible, therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the order of learned CESTAT is incorrect or illegal is not tenable. When all the business entities are independent business entities, then there is nothing wrong in holding that a business entity cannot be held responsible for any Lorry Receipts, which is not related to it. The dispute between the parties as well as order of the learned Tribunal is purely based upon appreciation of facts and keeping in view the nature of dispute, no question of law arises. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|