TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2012-EX[DB] - FINAL ORDER NOs 72591-72592/2018 - Dated:- 25-9-2018 - Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Absent on Call for Appellant(s) Shri Pawan Kumar Singh (Superintendent) AR for Respondent(s) ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar Above stated two appeals are taken together for decision since both of them are arising out of common impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 466-469-CE/MRT-II/2011 dated 30.08.2011 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise Service Tax, Meerut-II 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were manufacturers of Menthol and Pepper Mint Oil. The appellants were issued with a show cause notice dated 14.01.2010 through whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant is also attaching a copy of report received from the office of Commissioner, Central Excise, Jammu under RTI Act, 2005 wherein is attached a copy of letter C. No. CE-20(Hdqrs Prev) Misc/J K/08/09/Pt/391 dated 21.05.2010 issued by Commissioner, Jammu addressed to Chief Commissioner, Central Excise, Chandigarh and the Note sheet of the relevant file no. CE20(Hdqrs Prev)Misc/J K/08/09/Pt. Appellant is also attaching a copy of report under RTI Application received from the office of Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh. Copies of the report under RTI Act, 2005 are attached as Annexure 17. (f) that It would be noticed from Para 5 of the letter dated 21.05.2010 of Commissioner, Jammu that his office has specifically pointed in reference to in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore this Tribunal. 3. On call the counsel for the appellant was absent. We have heard Shri Pawan Kumar Singh learned Superintendent, AR for Revenue. We note that during earlier hearing on 07.08.2018 Shri Mathur, Advocate had submitted a copy of Final Order No. A/71939-71959/2017-EX[DB] dated 01.11.2017 passed by this Tribunal on similar issue. 4. We have gone through the record of the present case and also the final order as stated above. We note that in similar matters this Tribunal had recorded following finding which is reproduced below:- 10. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of the facts on record, we find that the basic allegations in the Show Cause Notice was that M/s Arora Aromatics did not receive inpu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he investigations were not undertaken to find out wherefrom the inputs were received by the appellant for the goods they manufactured and on which they paid duty and which were exported, if they had been received the inputs from M/s Ruchi Infotech System, Jammu or the other suppliers of inputs. Further, the additional evidence submitted by the appellant indicated that in respect of units in Jammu, Central Excise Officers visited the factory premises and seen that the manufacturing process going on was evidence by them and such evidences being on record and submitted by the appellant it was the duty of the Original Authority to accept them and not to discard by saying that the Officers have not seen the goods being manufactured by their own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
