9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (7) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p firm of which the petitioners in S.Nos. 2, 3 4 are the partners while the petitioner in S.No.4 Sri Mathachan was an employee. 2. Shri Chidambaram, the learned Consultant for the petitioners, submitted that the impugned order is in consequence of an order or remand passed by the Tribunal on 20.31987 in Order No:172/87. It was submitted that in the earlier order the adjudicating authority had imposed a doty of Rs.21,80,309.59 which has been onreimarid reduced to Rs. 18,31,378;01. tt was urged that while the quantum oMuty was deduced by more than Rs.3 lakhs, the adjudicating authority sabsequertly remark tias enhanced the quantum of penalty from Rs.tlakh to Rsatekhswt the partnership firm. 3. Shri Chidambaram, the learned Consultant fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Evidence Act The impugned order was, therefore, assailed as legally not,tenab)e. . 4. The learned .Consultant furthersubmitted that in the examination the said Balan has admitted, that the figures, reflected in the Registerrecovered ,fcom his possession contain particulars of production of other people as well and only about Rs.3 lakhs worth of clearances are attributable to the petitioners. This aspect of the case has not been properly taken into consideration by the adjudicating authority . The learned Consultant further submitted that the valuation of the clearances adopted in the impugned order would run counter to the valuation adopted by the Department in the proceedings before the High Court wherein Chathunni Nair, Superinte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in respect of the clearances of goods without paymehfof duty. Theleamed D.R; further urged that the difference in the production figures as reflected in the affidavit filed in the High Court by the Superintendent and the one adopted in the impugned order would only make a difference of Rs.1 lakh in the quantum of duty and the figures are by and large correct. Finally, the learned D.R. after scrutiny of the Balance Sheet and the financial position of the petitioner company submitted that even according to the petitioner the statement of Balan contains details to hold that the petitioner has cleared goods evading payment of duty upto about Rs.3 lakhs and the petitioner may be called upon to make a pre-deposit of this amount. 6. We have ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
