M/s. Sitara Conductors & Cables Pvt. Ltd., Shri Nirmal Kumar Mukim Versus Commissioner of CGST, Howrah
Central Excise
2018 (12) TMI 1020 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI
CESTAT KOLKATA – AT
Dated:- 31-7-2018
Appeal Nos. E/75935 & 75936/2018 – FO/76971-76972/2018
Central Excise
Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial)
Shri Saurabh Bagaria, Advocate for the Appellant (s)
Shri H.S. Abedin, AC(AR) for the Respondent (s)
ORDER
Per Shri P.K. Choudhary
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of aluminium wires, aluminium strips, insulated strips, etc. classifiable under chapter 76 of the first schedule to CETA, 1985. Pursuant to an EA 2000 audit conducted at the Appellant's premis
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ed in the RG-23A register being maintained by the Appellant, which was also reflected in the ER-1 returns. He further stated that the impugned inputs had been used in relation to the manufacture of the final products. He also stated that no physical verification of stock had been conducted by the Department to substantiate the allegations and that the Department had proceeded solely on the basis of the statements of the transporter and the authorised representatives of the Appellant.
3. The ld. AR reiterated the findings of the lower authorities.
4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records.
5. I find that the veracity of the two invoices in dispute being Invoice No. 59 dated 9th May, 2011 issued by M/s Steel & Metals and Invoice N
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ting conclusion cannot be arrived at by disregarding the evidence and without discrediting the same. In the absence of any corroborative evidence, the contentions of the Revenue cannot be accepted.
6. I find that the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in their judgment dated 27.06.2016 in the case of Manjari Rungta & Anr. Vs. Comm. Of Central Excise, Kol-II Commissionerate & Anr. being W.P.No.392 of 2016 have observed as follows:
“There is no reference in the findings rendered in the order impugned to either the inventory report of the department prepared in 2010 or the private report which may have been procured by the petitioners in 2014. When there is material on record to suggest otherwise than what is concluded, the contrary conclusion c
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =