Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S. Ram Ganga Cement Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Meerut-Ii on 10 June, 2013

        

 
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 

WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, 

NEW DELHI-110066



COURT NO. II



Central Excise appeal No. 2934/2005



[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 167-CE/MRT-II/2005 dated 29.07.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Meerut-II, Meerut]



Date of Hearing/decision: 14th June, 2013



M/s. Ram Ganga Cement Pvt. Ltd.,                             Appellant



	Versus



CCE, Meerut-II                                                      Respondent
Present for the Assessee      : None

Present for the Revenue       : Ms. Sweta Bector, A.R. 

                                             

Coram: Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member

	    Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Technical Member

			    

FINAL ORDER NO. 56624/2013



Per D.N. Panda

None present for the appellant, nor is there any application for adjournment. At the prima facie stage of hearing interim application Tribunal observed as under:

The demand was confirmed after denying the credit in respect of defective Rods/Rounds and rejected Iron & Steel Bars which was received by the appellant under the invoice of First stage dealer on the ground that corresponding invoices of the manufacturer does not describe the goods as defective or rejected.

5. In this case as per the invoices, on the strength of which the credit was taken, described the goods as defective and rejected, whereas the corresponding invoices issued by the manufacturer are not defective and rejected goods. In these circumstances, Prima facie, the duty payment of the inputs is doubtful. When the aforesaid observation was of the Tribunal and also concurrent finding was that there was great variance in the invoices proving that the goods in proper condition was the subject matter of clearance without the same being defective appeal is dismissed.


	(Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.)







(RAKESH KUMAR)                                             (D.N. PANDA)

TECHNICAL MEMBER                                  JUDICIAL MEMBER



RK



??



??



??



??









2