TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (6) TMI 607
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 2. The Revenue is in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. PII/PAP/121/2008 dated 27.6.2008 whereby Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the lower adjudicating authority's order 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 52 and 55 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The departmental officer working ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l before the Commissioner (Appeals). Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed their appeal. Hence, the appeal. 3. The contention of the Revenue is that NTPPL, a sister concern of the respondent did not pay the duty on the goods removed from their factory which is admitted by Shri B.P. Bhagwat, an authorized signatory of NTPPL. In his statement dated 18.10.2005 recorded under Section 14 of Cent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the case, is not correct. Learned JDR also submitted that Order-in-Original in case of NTPPL was before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) at that time. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in his Order-in-Appeal has given clear cut findings that there is no loss of revenue to the department since this is revenue neutral cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... evidence produced by the respondent. I find that in para 5.4 of the order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) himself agreed with the lower adjudicating authority that the reason put forth by the respondent did not sound well and in other words, they should have taken reasonable steps before taking the credit in Books of Accounts on the basis of invoices issued by NTTPL, which is in contradiction....