M\/s Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Versus CGST & CE, Indore
Central Excise
2018 (6) TMI 1249 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 12-6-2018
E\/51042-51043\/2018-SM – Final Order No. 52211-52212\/2018
Central Excise
Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
\nShri Mehul Jivani, CA – for the appellant
\nShri S. Nunthuk & Shri P. Junega, DRs – for the respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Ms. Archana Wadhwa:
\nThe appellants are engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products which are also being exported by them.
\n2. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri Mehul Jivani, ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri S. Nunthuk & Shri P. Junega, ld. DRs appearing for the Revenue, I find that the disputed issue r<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ified the factual position and has not properly quantified the reversal. He also observed that in the operative part of the order, the original adjudicating authority has not mentioned about the dropping of the demand, which renders the same as a non-speaking order. Accordingly, he remanded the matter on the said count for re-verification. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n written off of raw materials and packing list. He submits that even if the Assistant Commissioner has gone by the report by the Supdt., the assessee is not at a disadvantageous position if the said figures are again verified. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Versus CGST & CE, IndoreCentral Excise2018 (6) TMI 1249 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMICESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 12-6-2018E\/51042-51043\/2018-SM – Final Order No. 52211-52212\/2018Central ExciseMrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Shri Mehul Jivani, CA – for the appellant Shri S. Nunthuk & Shri P. Junega, DRs – for the respondent ORDER … Continue reading “M\/s Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Versus CGST & CE, Indore”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12371","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12371","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12371"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12371\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12371"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12371"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12371"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nAs regards, the assessee's appeal, he upheld the duty confirmation to the extent of Rs. 14,359\/- along with penalty. The said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is impugned before Tribunal.
\n4. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant draws my attention to the relevant paragraph of the order of the Assistant Commissioner and submits that he had called for a report from jurisdictional, Central Excise, Su<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. After considering the submissions made by both the sides, I agree with the ld. AR that the adjudicating authority, may verify the figures again. If according to the ld. Advocate, the figures are correct, the adjudicating authority would pick up the same figures again and there is no harm in verification of the same. It is also a fact that in the operative part of the order, the original adjudicating authority has not referred to dropping of demand. In such a scenario, I deem it fit to uphold the impugned order of C<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n