9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , for the Appellant. Shri S.C. Pushkarna, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The appellants are challenging the order of the lower authorities whereby a demand of duty has been confirmed against them to the tune of Rs. 1,04,027/-. The demand has been raised on the ground that, the appellants have shown higher amount of processing loss while converting the brass scrap for manufacture of billet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this count. Thus the demand of Rs. 1,04,027/- is liable to be confirmed along with interest @ 20% applicable." 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the findings of the adjudicating authority. Hence the appeal before the Tribunal. 3. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. 4. It is noted that, apart from holding that, the melting losses claimed by the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was noticed. The entire allegation is based on assumption and, without any credible collateral evidence, the charge of evasion cannot be sustained. I, therefore, find that the order of the lower authority confirming the demand to the extent of Rs. 1,04,027/- is totally unsustainable. So also the order imposing penalty. Accordingly, I allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
