9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 702X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi (AC) AR, for Respondent(s) ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar Present both appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal No.394-395-CE/APPL-LKO/LKO/2015 dated 14.10.2015 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Lucknow. Since both appeals are arising out of same impugned Order-in-Appeal, they are taken together for decision. 2. Brief fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given in the form of a chart after Para No.5 of the said show cause notice. It was alleged in the said show cause notice that M/s Mamta had indulged in receipt of uncounted raw materials and in suppression of production and clandestine removal of finished goods by resorting to issue of forged invoices with the intention to evade Central Excise Duty. It was also alleged that the other appellant wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore Commissioner (Appeals). Learned Commissioner (Appeals) decided appeals through impugned Order-in-Appeal. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) at Para 5.3.1 of his Order-in-Appeal has observed that by detecting forged and parallel invoice book the Department has discharged its burden to prove that there was clandestine clearance. In Para 5.8 the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also recorded that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sustainable. (ii) It is admitted in Para 6 of the show cause notice that invoice no.31 dated 30.11.2011 issued from the forged invoice book was issued to M/s United Steel Industries for removal of 32.860 MT of MS Ingots but in follow-up action conducted on 01.12.2011 no discrepancy was found. (iii) The Director of the appellant never admitted removal of MS Ingots without payment of duty and that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... book mentioned at Serial No.8 of Annexure A, Invoice No.3 was issued several times. No convincing defence was put forth against issue of number of invoices with the same number on various occasion to different purchases containing different information about the quantity of ingots cleared. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). I, therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
