9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to have been committed on two counts, namely, the alleged shortage in stock of raw materials STPP and Soda Ash and inferences arising therefrom and the finding regarding the inclusion in the assessable value of transportation charges collected by the appellant from the buyers. The first aspect has been discussed in the final order in Paragraphs 2 and 3 and the second point has been considered in Paragraphs 5 and 6. 2. At the hearing of the appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant challenged the conclusion drawn from the proved fact of substantial shortage of raw materials and stated that the quantification was approximate and not actual. In considering these submissions, we referred to the statement of Shri Brij Mohan, an employee of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. of Soda Ash referred to in the Panchnama and the figures found in the statement of Brij Mohan. Brij Mohan was asked to explain the stock of 19110 kgs. of STPP found as per stock register and the actual quantity of 15900 kgs. found on verification and similar entries of 33550 kgs. and 21375 kgs. of Soda Ash and he could not account for the discrepancies. Going by these figures, it is contended that the deficit of STPP was only 3210 kgs. and the deficit of Soda Ash was 12175 kgs. and the latter figure does not tally with the figure mentioned in the Panchnama and the show cause notice. Since our pointed attention was not drawn to these features in the case, we rejected the contention [addressed] in regard to the shortage of raw materials an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x months credit was given by the appellant to the wholesaler for the expenses so incurred. The matter in this perspective was not presented before us at the hearing of the appeal. We also relied on the statement of one of the partners of the wholesaler admitting that the wholesaler had been paying the freight charges and the same had not been returned to the wholesaler by the appellant. Our attention was not drawn to the circumstance that the statement was recorded on 15-1-1992, very well within the period of three months from the date of the agreement and as per agreement adjustment had to be done only at intervals of six months. Our attention was also not drawn to the circumstance that the appellant had written a letter dated 1-8-1992 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
