TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner had gone into the issue and found that there was no acceptable evidence in support of claim for export sales and purchase of raw material, on which excise duty has been paid - Hence, the Tribunal itself has found that there was no mistake attributable to the Tribunal - The appeal is dismissed against of assessee. - C.E.A. No.192 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 24-1-2011 - MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, JJ. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Jagmohan Bansal Mr. N.K. Sharma, Advocates for the appellant. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, the Act ) against the order of the Customs, Excise Service T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not available with them? 2. In pursuance of notice under Section 11A of the Act, Order-in-original was passed by the adjudicating authority, creating demand for excise duty due with interest and penalty. In the said order, it was found that two concerns namely appellant M/s Box Carton India Pvt. Ltd. (BCI) and Super Fine Packaging (SFP) were one unit and claim of the assessee for treatment of SFP as Small Scale Industry (SSI) was not acceptable. The said unit was not separate but another unit of BCI. Claim for CENVAT Credit was also rejected on the ground that BCI failed to furnish documents showing procurement of raw material by SFP or showing that SFP had made the requisite export sale. Against the said order, appeal of the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny evidence to show that the raw material used by SFP have suffered Central Excise Duty. BCI on beign asked to furnish the evidences has vide their letter 14.6.05 submitted that detail of suppliers of inputs which is not the proper document to avail CENVAT credit. 102. Similarly, BCI has pleaded that SFP made exports sale of Rs.36,29,012/- involving excise duty of Rs. ,80,642/- during the disputed period but have not furnished any corroborative evidence in their support. I am, therefore, unable to accept the claim. 4. In view of above, the Tribunal was justified in observing that the Commissioner had gone into the issue and found that there was no acceptable evidence in support of claim for export sales and purchase of raw material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
