TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 930
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....padhyay, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal dated 02.01.2018 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the demand of excise duty of Rs. 9,07,166/- has been confirmed for the period Financial Year- 2011-12, along with interest and penalty imposed as proposed in the Show Cause No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the purchasers. Such rejected quantities were received in the Unit II of the Appellant i.e. Barauni, Begusarai and the same was used for re-making as per the provision of Rule 16(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Appellant states that out of the total rejection m Memos issued, 15 nos. of rejection memos were wrongly addressed in favour of Unit I and received by the Head Office. However, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....envat credit on the context that the returned goods were not received by the Barauni unit of the Appellant. The said Show Cause Notice culminated into demand order dated 31.03.2017 and further the first appellate authority also upheld the same vide order dated 02.01.2018. Hence the present appeal. 5.1 Shri Ankit Kanodia, learned Advocate, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. He contended that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Noida wherein The High Court of Allahabad [MANU/UP/1766/2013] (3) UM Cables Limited Vs. Union of India and Ors. [MANU/MH/0466/2013] (4) Shivam Electrical Industries Vs. Union of India [2018 (359) E.L.T. 46 (J & K)] 6. The learned Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of the respondent department, justified the orders of the lower authorities. ....