9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the appellant in spite of notice. The Revenue filed Misc. application brought on record the statement of one Shri Rajesh Kumar Trivedi, which was recorded in relation to the copy of affidavit filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the Misc. application is allowed. The appellant also filed reply to the application. 2. The brief fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statutory Central Excise records with regard to receipt of raw material and manufacture and removal of finished goods. The fact was also admitted by G.K. Agarwal, Managing Director in his statement dated 11-1-2000. The Managing Director admitted in his statement those respondents were manufacturing excisable goods without any intimation to the Revenue prior to 16-12-96. 3. The respondent filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffidavit was submitted to the Revenue whereas the premises of the appellant was visited on 4-11-96. The contention is that the Commissioner (Appeals) only relied upon the copy of affidavit which was filed by the present respondent and set aside the demand. The authenticity of affidavit was not gone into by the Commissioner (Appeals) now Shri R.K. Trivedi on enquiry disclosed that he has not flied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue officers that too without verification is not sustainable. I find that it is a fit case for re-consideration by the Commissioner (Appeals). The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the present respondent. The appeals are disposed of by way of remand. (Dictated pronounced in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
