2007 (4) TMI 516

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pondent. [Order per : D.N. Panda, Member (J)]. Revenue came in appeal against order dated 27-11-2003 passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeal-II), Kolkata holding that the Respondent not having prejudiced interest of Revenue, order of adjudication was liable to be quashed. 2. The ld. SDR appearing for the Appellant/Revenue urged that, finding the Respondent had not informed about their m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uction figures but mere projection. The projected figures which had no bearing on duty should not be viewed adversely. Onus of proof of clandestine manufacture and removal was on Revenue and that was not discharged. Therefore, hypothetical figures shall not form basis of adjudication. 3.2 The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) passing a very reasoned and speaking order was right in law to quash the orde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X