9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsultant, for the Appellant. Shri Y.S. Loni, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : D.N. Panda, Member (J)]. The Appellant challenged order dated 15-9-2003 passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeal) Bhubaneswar upholding the order of adjudication. The first Appellate Order confirmed the allegation of purchase of 3.5 MT iron and steel product transported by Truck No. OAO-1314 holding that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct the allegation of Revenue. 2. Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the observations/findings of the Lower Appellate Authority was bad without evidence and the statement recorded from truck driver, one Shri R. Parida and M/s. S.L. Agarwal and Co. although not relied without cross-examination, without bringing any nexus, holding S.L. Agarwal and Co. as sister concern of the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sustained and the appellant as well as its sister concern M/s. S.L. Agarwal Co. having joined their hands to come to rescue of each other, their evasive practice of issuance of fake challan and possession of excess stock were brought to day light proving their ill design to evade duty. For all these reasons, the first appellate order was not baseless but sustainable. 4. Heard both sides and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conclusion on the allegation of clandestine removal of 3.5 MT iron and steel product. Accordingly, this aspect of the matter is remanded back to the Lower Appellate Authority for thorough examination and conclusion for which first appellate order calls for modification. 6. So far as the second allegation is concerned, the excess stock of 486.845 was admittedly found in the course of investigati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
