TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Shakkarwar, Member ( Technical ) Shri Udit Chandra, Advocate, for Appellant Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Superintendent (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per Anil Choudhary The present appeal is filed by the appellant, M/s P. K. Singhal, Manager Finance, Excise Taxation against Order-in-Original No. 44-45/Commissioner/GZB/2010-11 dated 28/03/2011 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise Service Tax, Ghaziabad. 2. The appellant has prayed for early hearing of their appeal vide Miscellaneous Application, stated herein that the main appeal of M/s Rathi Industries Ltd. bearing appeal No. E/1648/2011-EX[DB] against the same common Order-in-Original have been disposed of vide Final Order No. 70739/2016 being order date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of witnesses and discovery of any information, etc. We further find that the statements of the employees of Rathi Ispat Ltd., are vague and unsubstantiated, having no legs to stand. Similarly, the statement of the Transporter-Pramod Sachdeva, is also vague and made out of memory which appears to be under undue influence exercised upon him. Further, we find that the statement of all these persons, are self-contradictory as the employees of Rathi Ispat Ltd., having stated that M.S. Billets/Ingots were found lying in the stock of Scrap, which were cleared on payment of duty. Similarly, the transporter, Pramod Sachdeva have also not denied the raising of bills for the transport charges on the appellant, nor have denied the receipt of money for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be set aside. 10. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order. The appellant shall be entitled to consequential benefits in accordance with law. The appellant is entitled to take back the Cenvat Credit debited in their register by way of pre deposit during the pendency of this appeal with interest, as per Rules. Thus, the appeal stands allowed. 5. Considering the contentions and our findings in the appeal of M/s Rathi Industries Ltd., we find that the penalty imposed on this appellant under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, is not sustainable and accordingly the same is set aside. Thus, the appeal is allowed. The appellant will be entitled for consequential benefits, if any, in accordance with law. ( Dictated and pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
