TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1291
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hanty The brief facts of the case are that the officers of DGCEI, Raipur, based on certain intelligence, conducted search and enquiry on 30/31-12-2011 with reference to activities of M/s Indian Steel and Power Pvt. Ltd., Raipur. During the course of verification of the documents and pen drive recovered from the city office of the said company, officers recovered certain details of clearance of co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 03/01/2017 has upheld the adjudged demands confirmed in the adjudication order. Feeling aggrieved with the said impugned order, the appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the whole case of the department against the appellants was based on third part....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Raipur Forging Pvt. Ltd. V/s CCE, Raipur-I, 2016 (335) ELT 297 (Tri. Del.) and Final Order No. 55273-55274/2016- SM (BR) dated 30/13/2016 to state that based on the same investigation, the duty demand confirmed against those appellants by the department were set aside by the Tribunal, holding that in absence of proper substantiation of receipt of inputs and their use for manufacture of goods, re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pped the investigation based the recording of the statement of the persons, it cannot be said that the department has substantiated its stand, justifying confirmation of the adjudged demand against the appellant. Further, I find that out of the same investigation conducted by DGCEI, the duty demand confirmed against other parties namely, Raipur Forging Pvt. Ltd. and Shubh Labh Ispat Pvt. Ltd. were....