2000 (3) TMI 426

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ollowing questions of law are framed by the Revenue for referring to the High Court in respect of the Final Order No. A/727/98-NB, dated 25-6-1998 passed by the Bench. 1. Whether the benefit of invisible loss i.e. 0.5% can be given to the party, as this loss had never been shown by the party in their statutory records. 2. Whether in absence of corroborative evidence, benefit can be given to th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n the assessee. The appeal of the assessee failed before Collector (Appeals). On second appeal before the CEGAT, the Tribunal set aside the order appealed against and allowed the appeal of the assessee. The Tribunal in its order examined the statement of Sh. Sunil Rastogi authorised signatory of the assessee on which substantial reliance had been placed by the department and came to the conclusion .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tory, the lower authorities erred in holding that the allegation of clandestine production and removal sustained. 3. It would be seen from the above observations in the Tribunal s decision that while considering the .5% loss for a period of 26 months as normal, the reliance is placed on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. reported in 1995 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X