TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause notice issued by the Revenue has also been served on the appellant - Revenue has taken all possible steps to put the appellant on notice regarding the proposed denial of the benefit of the notification. However, the appellant has chosen not to make use of the opportunity - principles of natural justice was duly followed. Appeal dismissed - decided against Appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 52705 of 2015 - Final Order No. 57835/2017 - Dated:- 14-11-2017 - Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Sh. N. K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant Sh. S. K. Bansal, AR for the respondent ORDER Per: V. Padmanabhan This appeal is filed against the Order-in-original No. 14/15 dated 12.02.2016 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartment was intimated of the same on 29.03.2010. He claimed that the commercial production in the new unit was started by 31.03.2010 in which the semi-finished PCBs from the unit situated at F-15 was received in the new unit at F-32 and finished goods were cleared availing the exemption benefit. He also denied the allegation raised by the department in the show cause notice to the effect that machineries were not purchased and installed before 31.03.2010. Drawing our attention to the purchase bills for machineries dated 22.03.2010 and 23.03.2010, he submitted that the payments for the same were made through banking channels. Finally, he submitted that the impugned order may be set aside. 5. Ld. AR on the other hand justified the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... installed in the declared premises and commercial production was started before 31.03.2010. In support of their claim they submitted the following documents. i) Chartered Engineer certificate dt. 30.03.2010 from Sh. V.C. Garg, Chartered Engineer stating that machineries were already installed. ii) Purchase bill from M/s G.D. Enterprises, Mathura Road, Faridabad for purchase of various machinery for a total value of ₹ 20,40,000/-. iii) Bank statement evidencing payment of the price of machinery. iv) Form-16 No. UK UA-D20090036318 for machinery said to be transported vide vehicle No. HR 38J 4611 to appellant. 8. In the investigation undertaken by the department it was found that M/s G.D. Enterprises did not e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty demand is fully justified. 11. The appellant has raised the point that the impugned order has been passed without hearing him. In para 3.1 of the impugned order, the adjudicating authority has recorded that the appellant was granted an opportunity for personal hearing on eight dates spanning the period 21.08.2014 to 28.01.2015. The show cause notice issued by the Revenue has also been served on the appellant. From the above, we are convinced that the Revenue has taken all possible steps to put the appellant on notice regarding the proposed denial of the benefit of the notification. However, the appellant has chosen not to make use of the opportunity. This cannot be considered as denial of the principles of natural justice. 12. In v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
