Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2014 (5) TMI 529

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oprietor concern of Anil Kumar Verma. It was registered under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (Act, for short) as a manufacturer of LPG Bungs, Cylinder Bungs, V.P. Rings, M.V. Parts, Forgings, etc. The registration was granted in the name of the appellant-Shree Ganesh Industries at B-10, Dhanpati Industrial Estate, Najafgarh, New Delhi. 2. The aforesaid premises was inspected by the officers of the Central Excise on 25th May, 2005 and 11th June, 2005. It was found that the said premises was being used by a contractor of Metro Rail. Thereafter, statements of Anil Kumar Verma were recorded on 2nd June, 2005 and 26th July, 2005 under Section 14 of the Act. Subsequently, a show cause notice dated 22nd December, 2005 was issued and after ex....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....got the manufacturing done from the unit at Bhiwadi. He had further pointed out that the unit/property at Delhi had been sold. This, however, it is submitted did not mean that the appellant was not having or continuing with his operations at the Delhi address. It is submitted that there is difference between sale of the property and stopping business activities at the Delhi address. It is submitted that the appellant had filed a number of documents in the form of Goods Receipts, invoices, etc., to show that the Delhi office/address had continued till May, 2005. Our attention has also been drawn to the reply given to the show cause notice and the contention raised by the appellant. Contentions in the reply are recorded and noticed in the ord....