TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (9) TMI 56
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....adu, Advocate for the appellant ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This order will dispose of CEA Nos.170 and 171 of 2010, as both appeals involve commons questions. 2. CEA No.170 of 2010 has been filed by the assessee under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, "the Act") against order dated 3.9.2009 in appeal No.6266/2004 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the glaring facts of the case? (v) Whether the letter dated 7.7.2010 issued to the Appellant for recovery of dues, would hold validity during pendency of the present appeal? 3. During scrutiny of record of M/s Vimal Alloys Ltd., it was noticed that alloy steel ingots of particular quantity were cleared to M/s Hansco Steels, out of which, part of goods w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....09 and 510 both dated 23.9.1997 of M/s Thapper Ispat Ltd., Ludhiana, whereunder they have supplied allow steel ingots weighing 15.105 MT and 14.165 MT respectively. On the said material M/s Thapper Ispat Ltd., Ludhiana have discharged their duty liability @ 15% adv. And was covered under general scheme of Section 3 of the central Excise Act, 1944 applicable to alloy steel and its products only and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Submission made on behalf of the appellant is that finding of clandestine removal has been recorded against the appellant merely on the statement of co-accused which could not be acted upon without corroboration. 6. We are unable to accept the submission. The adjudicating authority not only took into account the statement of the supplier of goods but a....