TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial on record evidencing payment of octori duty leads us to conclude against the Appellants defence that goods were taken from Unit at Nashik to Unit at Thane. The findings recorded by all the authorities below thus, cannot be faulted with. - 99 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 5-10-2010 - V.C. Daga and R.M. Savant, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Sushant Murthy i/b Naresh Thacker and M.R. Baya, for the Appellant. S/Shri P.S. Jetly, with J.B. Mishra, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : V.C. Daga, J. (Oral)]. - Perused Appeal. 2.Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 3.This Appeal was admitted by an order dated 10-1-2006 to consider following substantial questions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , on the invoices. This fact when came to the light, the Central Excise Department, issued 7 show cause notices to the Appellants calling upon them to show cause why credit of Rs. 2,70,029.21 should not be disallowed and recovered from them with penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules 1944 (the Rules). 7. The Appellants by their reply dated 28-11-1996 replied to the show cause notice. The Appellants were granted personal hearing by the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise. The Appellants, during the course of the personal hearing, filed an Affidavit of its Director Smt. S.B. Pherwani confirming the receipt of the inputs at Thane unit. During the Course of inquiry, it came on record that invoices were originally issued i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner of Central Excise, Pune, the Appellants carried appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), who was pleased to confirm the finding recorded in the order in original holding that the corrections made in invoice were not done at the time of removal of the goods, but the same were done subsequently It was also found that the Appellants failed to produce any substantial evidence to prove that the inputs in question were travelled from Unit at Nashik to Unit at Thane. The wrong statements made in the Affidavit dated 28-12-2006 were noticed. The Appeal, ultimately, was dismissed finding it to be without any merit. 9. Not satisfied with the aforesaid order of the First Appellate Authority, the Appeal was carried to the Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
