9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as confirmed based upon the documents/private records recovered by the Officers of the DGAE, Calcutta, during the course of search of the business premises of the assessee s dealers/distributors and on the finding that the respondents were making some extra collections over and above the bill amount in respect of sale of plywood despatched from the respondents factory, on which duty was being paid by them on the factory gate sale basis. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the show cause notice is vague and non-specific, inasmuch as the same neither indicates quantity, variety, quantum of value suppressed, relevant price declarations, periods of demand, rates of redetermined values, etc. She has also relied upon the earlier Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount. She has observed that the draft of Rs. 1,11,462.00 (Rupees one lakh eleven thousand four hundred and sixty-two) which was alleged to be extra payment on undervaluation of the goods, was realised by the adjudicating authority. Investigations did not give any proof of this allegation, and inasmuch as there is an ex-factory gate price available, as approved by the proper officer in terms of the provisions of Rule 173C, the same has to be adopted. By observing so, she has allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned Order. 5. The Revenue in their Memo of Appeal have put forth the following grounds :- (1) That the Order-in-Appeal of Commissioner (Appeals) holding that SCN is vague and did not find sufficient evidence to prove allegat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... topadhyay, learned Consultant for the respondent-company, we find that the Revenue has not referred to any specific evidence in their grounds of appeal, so as to counter the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). The fact that the respondents agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 5.00 lakhs (Rupees five lakhs) during the course of investigations, by itself is not a sufficient proof of their guilt. The respondents have explained that such deposits were made at the insistence of the Investigating Officers. In any case, the same cannot take place of evidence and the Revenue while making the allegations are required to prove the same by production of sufficient and affirmative legal evidence. Inasmuch as there is nothing on record as observed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
