9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 790X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor, for the Respondent. [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. In the impugned order ld. Commissioner held - In view of the discussions findings I hold that impugned order in respect of Delhi Paper Company, Delhi is not maintainable. I, therefore, set aside the order and allow the appeal. 2. Being aggrieved by this order. Revenue has filed the captioned appeal. 3. The facts of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents herein. The respondents filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) after careful consideration of the submissions made, held as indicated above. 4. Arguing the case Shri R.D. Negi, ld. DR reiterates the findings of the ld. Additional Commissioner, Ghaziabad and submits that in view of the facts stated therein the order of the ld. Addl. Commissioner may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct if it is proved that a consignment is not covered by valid duty paying document, it is not necessary to prove that the consignment was part of the suppressed production. Ld. DR also submitted that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that nowhere it had been established with evidences that sale of 171.250 m.ts. of Paper had not taken place from M/s. Deepshikha Paper Mart, Delhi to M/s. D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner of the Firm/respondent in this case submitted that their case is fully covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Meerut v. M/s. Magnum Paper Ltd. [2000 (118) E.L.T. 281 (T)]. He submits that this case was decided by the Tribunal on 10-2-2000. He submitted that in view of the fact that their case is fully covered by the above decision, he, therefore, prayed that the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccording to variety so that the prices mentioned in the price lists relied upon by the revenue could be applied to the seized goods. In these circumstances, the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in holding that the investigation had not established the case. Therefore, we are of the opinion that he could not be faulted for dropping the demand on the ground of under-valuation. The appeal fails and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
