9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mr. (AR) ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair The applicant filed the present application for rectification of mistake in this tribunal's order no. A/10068/2018 dated 09/01/2018. 2. Shri Paritosh Gupta, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that this tribunal vide order dated 09/01/2018 partially allowed the appeals but a demand of Rs. 1,67,117/- along with interest and equivalent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order which needs to be rectified and consequently, application may be allowed. 3. Shri Amit Kumar Mishra, Ld. Dy. Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue strongly supports the order of this Tribunal. 4. On careful consideration of the submission made by both the sides and perusal of record, I find that the Tribunal in its final order dated 09/01/2018 recorded the submission of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ards, the demand of duty on the goods based upon the consignment notes issued by the transporter it is the submission that the consignment notes were in respect of the goods cleared and received back and the second consignment note does not have any signature of the appellant or the responsible person. ....... He would rely upon the following decisions: * Shah Alloys Ltd. vs CCE Ahmedabad III ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the Revenue is not able to prove the demands that there was clandestine removal of the goods. On perusal of the goods consignment notes, which Was relied upon by the Revenue, I do fine that the said consignment motes clearly indicates the consignor name and address of the appellant. In my view, the demand of Rs. 1,67,117/- needs to be upheld along with interest as also equivalent amount of penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
