2001 (6) TMI 485

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f of the appellants. Appellants vide letter dated 14-12-2000 made a request to decide the appeal on merits. 2. The appellants filed this appeal against the order in original passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) where the goods claimed by the appellants were confiscated and the Commissioner gave option to lawful owners to redeem the goods on payment of fine at the rate of 50% of the value of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... morandum the contention of the appellants are that they purchased the goods from various dealers from Surat and the dealers purchased the man-made fabrics from the open market for supplying the same to the appellant. Their submission is that when the goods were purchased from the open market they cannot be held to be non-duty paid. Their submission is that the dealer at Surat had made some cutting .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he goods. The Commissioner in the impugned order in Para-20.3 and sub-paras of Para-20.3 discussed the discrepencies in the invoices produced by the appellants and the photo copies of the invoices which were recovered at the time of the search of premises of transport companies and held that both the invoices do not tally with each other. In the present appeal appellants had not produced any evide .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X