M\/s. Solux Galfab (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & CX, Kolkata (North)
Central Excise
2018 (12) TMI 773 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI
CESTAT KOLKATA – AT
Dated:- 25-4-2018
Appeal No. E\/75117\/18 – FO\/76510\/2018
Central Excise
SHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
\nShri B. N. Chattopadhyay, Consultant for the Appellant (s)
\nShri S. Mukhopadhyay, Suptd. (A. R.) for the Revenue
\nORDER
\nPER SHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY
\nThe appellant is engaged in the manufacture of microwave tower etc. classifiable under Chapter 73 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In course of verification, it was found that MS Scraps were removed from the factory to M\/s. Om Trading Corporation, Howrah during the period from April, 2<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n al amount under Section 11 AC. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Solux Galfab (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & CX, Kolkata (North)Central Excise2018 (12) TMI 773 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMICESTAT KOLKATA – ATDated:- 25-4-2018Appeal No. E\/75117\/18 – FO\/76510\/2018Central ExciseSHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri B. N. Chattopadhyay, Consultant for the Appellant (s) Shri S. Mukhopadhyay, Suptd. (A. R.) for the Revenue ORDER PER … Continue reading “M\/s. Solux Galfab (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & CX, Kolkata (North)”<\/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-15523","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15523","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=15523"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15523\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15523"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15523"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15523"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n2. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Adjudication Order and rejected the appeal. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal.
\n3. The Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the Appellant Company submits that there is no dispute in the present case that the Duty has been paid prior to the issuance of the Show Cause Notice along with interst and accordingly, penalty imposed under Section 11 AC is unwarranted.
\n4. The Ld. DR reiterates the orders of the Lower Authorities.
\n5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records.
\n6. I find that the Appellant Company had cleared the waste & scraps from their manufacturing facility under challans but subsequently, no Central Excise invoices were rai<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n