Trikoot Iron & Steel Casting Ltd. Versus Commr. of Central GST, Meerut-i
Central Excise
2018 (8) TMI 784 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – TMI
CESTAT ALLAHABAD – AT
Dated:- 10-7-2018
E\/70335\/2018-EX[SM] – A\/71381\/2018-SM[BR]
Central Excise
MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)
\nShri Aalok Arora, Advocate for the Appellant (s)
\nShri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi, AC(A.R.) for the Revenue
\nORDER
\nPer Mrs. Archana Wadhwa:
\nAfter hearing both sides, it is seen that duty of Rs. 21,28,500\/-(Rupees Twenty One Lakh Twenty Eight Thousand & Five Hundred only) stands confirmed against the appellant, who are engaged in the manufacture of MS bars, on the allegations and findings of clandestine activities.
\n2. Out of the said demand, duty of Rs. 20<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ther activities of the assessee and ER-1 figures are the correct figures, the lower authorities have not accepted the said stand and based upon the difference in figures confirmed the demand. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Trikoot Iron & Steel Casting Ltd. Versus Commr. of Central GST, Meerut-iCentral Excise2018 (8) TMI 784 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – TMICESTAT ALLAHABAD – ATDated:- 10-7-2018E\/70335\/2018-EX[SM] – A\/71381\/2018-SM[BR]Central ExciseMRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) Shri Aalok Arora, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi, AC(A.R.) for the Revenue ORDER Per Mrs. Archana Wadhwa: After hearing both … Continue reading “Trikoot Iron & Steel Casting Ltd. Versus Commr. of Central GST, Meerut-i”<\/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-13240","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13240","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=13240"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13240\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13240"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13240"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13240"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. I find that apart from the said difference, there is virtually no other evidence on record to show any clandestine manufacture and removal of the goods. Even if the assessee's explanation is not accepted it has to be appreciated that both the figures stand given in the two returns by the appellants themselves. The charges of clandestine removal are required to be produced by the Revenue and onus is heavily placed upon them. No efforts stand made by the Revenue to further investigate the matter and collect evidence of any clandestine activities. Ina<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n