9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Works, against the order in appeal no. 58/CE/D-II/2011 dated 04.02.2011passed by the Commissioner & Central Excise, Panchkula. 2. The brief fact of the case are that appellant is manufacturer of Coil, Sheets, Circles of brass & copper falling under chapter heading no. 7409 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1944. The appellant claims to have received certain quantity of copper rods during December 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M (BR) dated 08.09.2009 remanded the case to the adjudicating authority to decide the case in accordance with the law laid down by this Tribunal in case of Rajiv Alloy Ltd. Assistant Commissioner vide his order No. 16/AC/YNR/2010 dated 31.08.2010 has confirmed the Show Cause Notice against the appellant and also imposed the penalty equal to the Cenvat Credit on them. The appellant filed an appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to the adjudicating authority for following the case of Rajiv Alloy. In the present case he also submits that 60 rubber Stamps of various authorities/buyers were recovered from the appellant. Burden of proof that invoices are not bogus is on the appellant. He submits that Commissioner (appeal) has rightly upheld order of adjudicating authority. 5. After hearing both sides I find that the case w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act that the order of the Tribunal was not challenged and also the fact that appellant did not prove receipt and use of the goods in the manufacture of find products, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeal). Accordingly I uphold the order in appeal and reject the appeal of the appellant.
(Order dictated & pronounced in the open Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
