9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 910X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pdt (AR), for Appellant Shri G.K. Sarkar, Advocate, for Respondent Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeal filed by Revenue is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 597-CE/MRT-II/2011 dated 23/12/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Meerut-II. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents were issued with a demand cum show cause notice dated 22.03.2011 objecting to avai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 24.08.2011. The Original authority did not appreciate the contention stating that the photo statecopy acknowledgement issued by Postal authorities was not admissible as evidence. He, therefore, confirmed the demand and imposed equal amount of penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner (Appeals) decided the appeal thr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nowledgement issued by Postal authorities was not admissible. 4. Heard the parties. 5. Having considered the submissions and on perusal of record, we find that Commissioner had acknowledged a receipt of declaration on 20.10.2009 by the respondent through the said letter dated 05.12.2011. This fact was stated by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in his order. The appeal filed by Revenue did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
