9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 691X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. Counsel for the appellant vehemently objects the order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on 28-3-2006. She has challenged that order on two counts submitting that there was no shortage of 2.373 MT of kraft paper nor there was any clandestine removal of 4343.452 MT of such goods for which the appellate order shall not survive. She also submits that entire adjudication has been done on s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Both the authorities have thoroughly examined the evidence of the partner Shri Bharat Patel that was recorded on 28-1-2004. Ld. Counsel having failed to provide a basis how statement recorded from Shri Bharat Patel shall be disputed. She could not rule out questionable modus operandi of Appellant. Therefore, the evidence that was gathered under Section 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944 does not cal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the cited decision by the ld. counsel. When the partner who is fully involved in the business has given a statement, that has provided support to the case of Revenue. Therefore the order passed by the authorities below remained untouched. 3. Heard both the sides and perused the record. 4. There is no doubt that certain documentary evidence was seized in the course of search on 11-11-03 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t from the case cited by ld. counsel in the manner and extent stated above and there is no cogent evidence at all led by the appellant before the authorities below to make re-conciliation of the discrepancy in goods, the appellant has failed to defend in the eyes of law. Added to the above, possession of the questionable document by the person in factory was not denied by Shri Bharat Patel. If any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
