2019 (8) TMI 1679

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....estine removal of their finished product to M/s Bhiwadi Rolling Mills Pvt. Limited, during the period May, 2011 to September, 2012. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots and registered with the Department. They are located in Bhiwadi (Rajasthan). In the same area another unit is located in the name and style of M/s Bhiwadi Rolling Mills Pvt. Limited, which is engaged in the manufacture of rolled steel products (hereinafter referred to as Bhiwadi). Search and seizure had taken place in the premises of the said Bhiwadi and also in the residential premises of its Directors. In the course of search certain incriminating records were found and further the Directors of the said Bhiwadi admitted ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... indirect taxation, despatch of finished goods and day-to-day work of the company. They are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. ingots. They had transaction with Bhiwadi prior to April, 2011, but they have no transaction with them since April, 2011 as evidenced from the ledger account of the said Bhiwadi. Further, they are still to receive an outstanding amount of Rs. 2,20,006/- from the said Bhiwadi. The said Bhiwadi is lying closed since long and they have no transaction with them since financial year 2011-12 onwards. Further, copy of ledger account of said Bhiwadi as appearing in the books of the appellant for the period 2011-12 and 2012-13 were submitted. Further, on being shown the tallydata of Bhiwadi Mr. Yadav stated that the said app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....alleged purchaser M/s Bhiwadi Rolling Mills. All the appeals were disposed of by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide common order-in-appeal dated 11.10.2018, upholding the order-in-original. Further, he was please to allow the appeal of Shri Ashish Gupta, Director of the appellant co. setting aside the penalty under Rule 26(1). Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) was pleased to allow the appeal of Revenue allowing the prayer for correcting the wrong section mentioned in para 5.1 of order-in-original which was mentioned as Section 11A(4) instead of Section 11A(10). Being aggrieved, these appeals are before this Tribunal. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant states that the show cause notice is based on wild assumption and presumption.....