Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S J.B.Textiles Industries Pvt. Ltd vs Cce Thane Ii on 17 April, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO. II
APPEAL NO. E/3161/05
Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 04/RKM/TH-II/2005 dated 31.05.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai.
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
M/s J.B.Textiles Industries Pvt. Ltd.
:
Appellant
Versus
CCE Thane II
Respondent
Appearance None for appellant Shri V.C. Khole, Jt. Commissioner (A.R.) For Respondent CORAM:
Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 17.04.2014 Date of Decision : 17.04.2014 ORDER NO.
Per Ashok Jindal None appeared on behalf of the appellant nor any request for adjournment has been received. On perusal of the records it is found that the matter was listed initially on 23.12.20013 for final disposal and thereafter, on 11.03.2014 but on both the occasions none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite notice. In the circumstance, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard the learned A.R.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the factory of the appellant was visited on 28.04.1991, the records were scrutinized and verified the stocks of fabrics lying in the factory premises. It was found that some stocks were ready for dispatch without entering in the statutory records. Further some delivery challans were found in the factory which was not recorded in the statutory records. In the circumstance, a case of clandestine removal was made out against the appellant and statements were recorded. The learned Commissioner confirmed the demand as per the show-cause notice. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant filed an appeal before this Tribunal.
4. This case was booked against the appellant on the basis of records available at the time of visit to the factory of the appellant and no defence has been taken by them before me. In the circumstance, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order and the same is upheld. The appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. (Dictated in open Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) nsk ??
??
??
??
3