9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 517X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. [Order]. The above captioned appeals have been directed by the appellants against the common order-in-appeal dated 16-5-2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the Joint Commissioner regarding the confiscation of the goods, vehicle and imposition of penalty of various amounts as detailed in that order itself. 2. The facts are not mu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods of the invoices dated 11-10-1999. On completion of the investigation, the show cause notice was served on the company as well as the owner of the truck. After hearing them, the Joint Commissioner confirmed the order of confiscation of the goods with an option to get the same redeemed on payment of redemption fine and imposed penalties of various amounts as detailed by him in the order-in-orig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ong with the other goods of the invoices issued on that very date is concerned, the same has not been, no doubt, disputed by the appellants company. But the statement of Shri Ramesh Sharma, Finance Manager of the company, which was recorded on 12-11-1999 explaining the circumstances under which the goods were being transported, had been wrongly ignored and not given any weightage. He in his state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were transported by them on the next working date i.e. 11-10-1999. 4. Regarding the clandestine removal of the goods under the cover of invoice dated 9-10-1999, after having earlier removed the goods covered by that very invoice as alleged in the show cause notice, there is not an iota of evidence on the record to substantiate the same. No discrepancy in the statutory record of the company was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
