9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (2) TMI 263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of goods seized from the Depot of one of their buyers namely M/s. DPC. 2. Excess stock involved was 942 Kgs. and accounted stock was 2,31,083 Kgs. With regard to the excess, the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the appeal, found that the excess was in the range 0.004%. With regard to valuation, the evidence addused by the Revenue was that a dealer at Coimbatore and Ahmedabad had given statements during investigations that they had made certain cash payments for paper purchased by them over and above the invoiced prices. The Commissioner (Appeals) found with regard to these goods that there were no particulars in the statements or in the show cause notice as to which varities of paper were subject of such cash payment. The good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ligible that it could be merely the result of error in estimation. With regard to valuation, the respondents contention is that the goods seized from M/s. D.P.C. was partly the produce and supply of the respondent and partly of Deep Shikha Paper Mart who are another dealer in paper. The duty demand attributable to the respondent's supplies was only about Rs. 1.91 Lakhs in the total demand of about Rs. 3 Lakhs. They submit that even this demand is not justified or is based on any evidence. M/s. DPC are only one of the buyers of paper & paper products sold by them to several dealers at the same price. The paper under seizure had not been sorted according to varieties. No effort had been made by the investigating authorities to show what was t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Gujarat that cash payments were taking place for the sale of paper and paper products, the Revenue had not investigated the matter in depth so as to ascertain whether the respondent had a practice of undervaluing paper and paper products manufactured by them, invoicing only part of the products and collecting part of the price in cash. No evidence had been brought on record that the sales to M/s. DPC were made at lower prices. This is particularly relevant as M/s. DPC was only one of the several buyers of the respondent's products. No demand is also found to have been raised in respect of the clearance to other buyers. The Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, is correct in pointing out that no correlation has been made between the alleged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
