9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.R. for the Respondent-Revenue ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra Heard both sides. These two appeals are filed against Order-in-Appeal No.390 to 400/2010/COMMR(A)/CMC/RAJ passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Rajkot. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on a visit to the Appellant's factory on 04.9.2008 by the officers of the central excise department, documents relating to alleged cland ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that even though during the course of adjudication proceeding, they have submitted a list of invoices against which the goods were cleared by other related companies, the same were not taken into consideration in confirming the demand. In support, he has referred to the invoices, ledgers, LRs etc. enclosed with the Appeal paper book (pages 94 to 548). He submits that in the event said invoices are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat these were in the nature of additional evidence, hence, cannot be entertained under Rule 5(1) of the Central Excise(Appeal) Rules, 2001. In rebutting the said observation, the ld. Advocate referred to their reply to the show cause notice annexed at page 380 of the Appeal paper book where under, they had specifically answered the allegation by mentioning the invoices issued by M/s Harsh Ceramic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the denial of CENVAT Credit of Rs. 1,51,976/-. The Ld. Advocate has vehemently argued that even though relevant invoices, ledgers, LRs explaining the alleged clearances of the goods were by other units, but erroneously considered to be their clearance, in the Annexure to the SCN, however, the adjudicating authority has not considered the same. I find that the Appellants in their Appeal paper bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
