9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal filed by the Revenue against the Order No. 49/PAT/CEX/APPEAL/2004, dated 4-2-2004 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs and Central Excise, Patna. In this case, the original adjudicating authority has confirmed the duty amount of Rs. 4,63,026.00 (Rupees four lakh sixty-three thousand and twenty-six) against the respondent company and an equivalent amount of penalty has been imposed on them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent company. But the duplicate copy of the relevant invoice was not submitted before the Department for defacement of the same. On demand, they produced the original copy of the Invoice dated 6-3-99. The lower authority confirmed the demand by imposing the equal amount of penalty and on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the Order passed by the lower authority. The Revenue has c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vit', Transporter's Consignment Note, Goods Received Note, Sales Tax Road Permit and 'Affidavit' of Transporter in this regard. Payment Particulars, Declaration to Assistant Commissioner and Superintendent under Rule 57T(1) (2) and other correspondences made to the Department by the respondent company to this effect, which would clearly indicate that the capital goods in question were received in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the show cause notice on the basis of circumstantial evidence should not have been issued. It was the duty of the Department to make a proper verification before issue of the show cause notice, which has not been done in the instant case. More so, the Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly observed that the fact of receipt of the capital goods and the duty payment thereon, their utilization in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
