2004 (2) TMI 487

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Respondent. [Order]. - Heard. This appeal has been directed against the order-in-appeal by the Revenue, vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original confirming the duty of Rs. 6,810/- on account of shortage of goods against the respondents and imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. 2. I have heard both the sides. From the record, it is quite evident that on taking .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ot further required to produce any corroborative evidence. Rather, the burden, was on the respondents to prove that the admission made by their representative was factually incorrect or obtained from him under coercion or duress. The authorised representative never retracted his own statement at any stage. Rather the respondents acted on his admission and debited the duty. 3. It was not esse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... age of the goods found, is of a small quantity or a large one, the law providing punishment on that account to the assessee, is the same. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) could not on this ground that the shortage found was negligible, reverse the order-in-original and exonerate the respondents from the duty liability. 5. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order is set asid .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X