9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... odvat credit. However, penalties were reduced to Rs. 2 lakhs. 2. Shri R.S. Dinkar, ld. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that many of the grounds raised by them in the memo of appeal were not considered by the Bench. He draws our attention to the ground that cross-examination of deponent s statement was not allowed by the adjudicating authority and submits that there is no specific finding of the Tribunal on the said issue. He further submits that the finding of the Tribunal that there were statements of applicants admitting the allegations is not correct. However, he agrees that the credit was reversed by the applicants during the course of investigation. He further submits that the Tribunal s finding that manufactu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue, which requires a long drawn process of arguments from both sides. We find that the ld. Advocate appearing for the applicants has referred to various issues, which already stands considered by the Tribunal and a finding arrived at on the basis of available evidence. The non-consideration of cross-examination issue (which, in any case was not raised at the time of hearing), by itself will not make the order suffering from a mistake inasmuch as the Tribunal has taken into account the statements of various persons recorded during the course of investigation, which corroborated each other and strengthens the revenue s stand. In any case, all these points relates to merits of the case and cannot be called a mistake in the order, requiring a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the show cause notice under Section 11A was not issued for erroneously granted refund and though this issue was raised in the appeal, the same was not considered. It was further observed that had this point been argued before the Bench, it would have to be accepted and appeal allowed. As such, it is seen that the above ground, which was not considered by the Bench was an independent ground and the Tribunal observed that if considered, the appeal was required to be allowed. Whereas in the present case, it is not the appellant s contention that any independent ground has not been considered. The various grounds raised in the appeal as also in the ROM application are inter-linked and it is the proper appreciation of evidence on record, which h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
