M\/s Bharat Rolling Mills Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Allahabad
Central Excise
2018 (9) TMI 1487 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – TMI
CESTAT ALLAHABAD – AT
Dated:- 14-8-2018
APPEAL No. E\/70014\/2018-EX[SM] – A\/71960\/2018-SM[BR]
Central Excise
Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical)
\nShri S. P. Ojha (Consultant) for Appellant
\nShri Pradeep Kumar Dubey (Supdt.) AR for Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: Anil G. Shakkarwar
\nThe present appeal is arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.181\/CE\/ALLD\/2017 dated 03\/10\/2017 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) CGST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Allahabad.
\n2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of rolled products of Iron & Steel. They were iss<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n for the appellant has submitted that the Departmental Officers visited their factory on 25\/09\/2008 and verified various registers including RG-1 Register and Cenvat Account Register and copies of the relevant pages of said Registers are placed in the appeal paper book. He has submitted the matter had come to the notice of Revenue on 25\/09\/2008 and that the show cause notice was issued on 04\/05\/2011 under extended period of limitation and therefore, the demand is time barred. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Bharat Rolling Mills Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, AllahabadCentral Excise2018 (9) TMI 1487 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – TMICESTAT ALLAHABAD – ATDated:- 14-8-2018APPEAL No. E\/70014\/2018-EX[SM] – A\/71960\/2018-SM[BR]Central ExciseMr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri S. P. Ojha (Consultant) for Appellant Shri Pradeep Kumar Dubey (Supdt.) AR for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar … Continue reading “M\/s Bharat Rolling Mills Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Allahabad”<\/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-14046","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14046","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=14046"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14046\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14046"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14046"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14046"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Heard the learned A.R. for Revenue who has supported the impugned Order-in-Appeal.
\n5. Having considered the contentions from both sides and on perusal of record, I find that the Departmental Officers visited the factory on 25\/09\/2008 and made endorsement on variou<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n