Cce & St Raipur vs M/S Balaji Structural India Pvt. Ltd
- CitationExcise Appeal No. E/57990/2013-[SM]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Commissioner (Appeals) having recorded specific reasons, after verifying the relevant records and documents, for holding that the goods were in fact supplied to SEZ units and that the respondent was therefore entitled to the export benefit, the Tribunal will not interfere with an appellate finding of fact so reached absent some demonstrated infirmity in the order; a finding based on proper verification of documents is not disturbed merely because the Revenue contends the verification was inadequate.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 77/RPR-I/2013 dated 08.03.2013 passed by CCE (Appeals) Raipur]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
CCE & ST Raipur ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
M/s Balaji Structural India Pvt. Ltd. Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. B B Sharma (DR) for the Appellant
Mr. Manish Saharan (Advocate) appeared for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing/ Decision. 23.09.2015
Final Order No. 52997/2015_
Per S K Mohanty:
The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 8.3.2013, wherein while allowing the appeal in favour of the Respondent herein, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the goods in question, have actually been supplied to the SEZ units, and as such, duty demand confirmed in the Adjudication Order is not proper and justified. In this appeal, the Revenues contention is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not properly verified the documents in order to arrive at the conclusion that the goods are actually been exported by the Respondent to the SEZ Units.
2. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Para 8 in the impugned order has recorded the specific reason as to why the Respondent shall be eligible for the export benefits. Since the impugned order has been passed upon proper verification of the records/ documents, I am of the view that there is no infirmity in the said order, which calls for interference of the Tribunal. Therefore, I dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(S. K. Mohanty)
Member(Judicial)
Neha
2 | Page
E/57990/2013-Ex[SM]
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free