9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 799X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posed of by a common order. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are during the year 1995-96, the appellant herein had prepared and issued central excise invoices under Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in respect of their final product i.e. texturised yarn to their customers. On scrutiny of the statutory records as well as the balance sheet, it was noticed by the departmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he demands demanded interest and also imposed penalties. Aggrieved by such an order, appellant preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority concurred the views of the adjudicating authority and upheld the demands confirmed by the lower authorities. 3. Ld. consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the lower authorities have not con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. Ld. D.R. on the other hand would reiterate the findings of the lower authorities. 5. We have considered the submissions made at length and perused the records. 6. On perusal of the records, we find that the issue involved in this case is regarding whether the demand of the differential duty can be sustained against the appellant for the period 1995-96 on the ground that they are ineligible f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve called for an explanation from the appellant as to what were the deductions that was claimed in the said invoices. The range authorities as well as the divisional authorities, kept quiet and did not ask any explanation from the appellant and issued a show cause notice on 23.04.2000 demanding the differential duty. In our view, the appellant has made out the case in his favour on the ground of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
