2017 (11) TMI 702

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (Consultant), for Appellant(s) Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi (AC) AR, for Respondent(s) ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar Present both appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal No.394-395-CE/APPL-LKO/LKO/2015 dated 14.10.2015 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Lucknow. Since both appeals are arising out of same impugned Order-in-Appeal, they are t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... invoice wise details of invoices issued was given in the form of a chart after Para No.5 of the said show cause notice. It was alleged in the said show cause notice that M/s Mamta had indulged in receipt of uncounted raw materials and in suppression of production and clandestine removal of finished goods by resorting to issue of forged invoices with the intention to evade Central Excise Duty. It ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e said order appellants preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Learned Commissioner (Appeals) decided appeals through impugned Order-in-Appeal. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) at Para 5.3.1 of his Order-in-Appeal has observed that by detecting forged and parallel invoice book the Department has discharged its burden to prove that there was clandestine clearance. In Para 5.8 the learned Com....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the demand of duty of shortage of ingots is not sustainable. (ii) It is admitted in Para 6 of the show cause notice that invoice no.31 dated 30.11.2011 issued from the forged invoice book was issued to M/s United Steel Industries for removal of 32.860 MT of MS Ingots but in follow-up action conducted on 01.12.2011 no discrepancy was found. (iii) The Director of the appellant never admitted r....