9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Shri Govind Dixit, DR For the Respondent : Shri Bipin Garg, Adv ORDER Per B. Ravichandran Both Revenue and assessee are in appeal against order dated 1.6.2006 of Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur. 2. The assessee are engaged in the manufacture of aluminium castings. Central Excise officers conducted a stock verification in the assessee's unit on 15.03.2005. They found certain shortages in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder categorically held that there is no evidence regarding manufacture of such aluminum casting, consumption of extra power, receipt of sale proceeds and transportation of such goods and accordingly held allegation of clandestine removal of aluminum casting is not sustainable. However, in para-7 of the same order he held regarding work in progress, that demand is to be confirmed to the extent of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Representative, Shri Govind Dixit argued that payment of disputed amount before show cause notice alone will not make the asesseee escape, from the penal liability for contravention of legal provisions. 6. We have heard both the sides and perused appeal records. To consider assessee's appeal first, we find that they are contesting the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in paras 6.1 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... castings has been evidenced, he upheld demand of duty on castings (para-7 of order) without any reasoning. His finding that cenvat credit available on ingots is to be reversed is without any basis and, in any case, the final confirmation of demand of duty on castings using such finding is totally misplaced. 8. Accordingly, we find that assessee succeeds in contesting the impugned order. We allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
