The Commissioner, GST (East), Cr Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi Versus Vimla Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., Rohit Agarwal
Central Excise
2017 (8) TMI 1170 – DELHI HIGH COURT – 2017 (358) E.L.T. 143 (Del.)
DELHI HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 11-8-2017
CEAC No. 21\/2017 & CM APPL 28675\/2017 AND CEAC No. 23\/2017 & CM APPL 28677\/2017
Central Excise
S. MURALIDHAR & PRATHIBA M. SINGH JJ
\nAppellant Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Namrata Bharti, Advocate
\nRespondent Through: None
\nO R D E R
\n1. These two appeals by the Commissioner, GST Delhi (East), New Delhi ('Department') under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ('CE Act') are directed against a common final order dated 28th Decembe<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n e Notice ('SCN') was issued to the Respondents. By the order in original dated 27th March, 2009 passed by the CCE a demand of Rs. 4,34,73,449.87\/- was confirmed. Apart from this, penalty and interest was also levied. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n d in File 25 of the seized records was concerned, reliance is placed by the Department on the statements recorded of one Mr. Gopal Krishnan as well as Mr. S. K. Chopra. The CESTAT found that the explanation given by these two deponents was contradictory in terms of the figures and other particulars and, therefore, was unreliable. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Commissioner, GST (East), Cr Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi Versus Vimla Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., Rohit AgarwalCentral Excise2017 (8) TMI 1170 – DELHI HIGH COURT – 2017 (358) E.L.T. 143 (Del.)DELHI HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 11-8-2017CEAC No. 21\/2017 & CM APPL 28675\/2017 AND CEAC No. 23\/2017 & CM APPL 28677\/2017 Central ExciseS. MURALIDHAR & … Continue reading “The Commissioner, GST (East), Cr Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi Versus Vimla Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., Rohit Agarwal”<\/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-7480","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7480","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=7480"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7480\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=7480"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=7480"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=7480"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Aggrieved by the above adjudication order, both the Respondents filed their respective appeals before the CESTAT which were allowed by the common impugned order dated 26th December, 2016.
\n5. The Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for the Department, and has perused the orders of the CCE as well as the CESTAT.
\n6. It is seen that, during the course of investigation, three slips were found in File 27 of the seized records. The contents of slips No. 2 and 3 were relied upon t<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n9. The view taken by the CESTAT on an appreciation of the evidence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be improbable. Mr. Harpreet Singh was unable to persuade the Court to hold that there was any perversity vitiating the said findings.
\n10. The Court, therefore, is of the view that no substantial question of law arises for determination from the impugned common order of CE<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n