2009 (3) TMI 820

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Respondent. [Order]. The learned DR submits that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not correctly came to the conclusion to hold that the order of adjudication is unsustainable. He has ignored the Laboratory report and considered the matter in favour of the respondent. There was a clandestine removal of goods through parallel invoices bearing No. 0005 dated 3-4-2001 involving duty .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... assed a reasoned and speaking order. Therefore, in absence of any contrary evidence against the respondent, the order appealed does not call for any interference. 3. Learned Counsel for respondent further submits that Revenue made an enquiry with the consignee whose names appeared in all the three invoices. No result could be obtained by Revenue against respondent. Revenue has also not brought o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... all the three invoices to the Examiner of Questioned Documents of Forensic laboratory located at Shimla. That Laboratory in terms of its communication dated 8-3-2006 dealt with only one invoice bearing No. 0507 dated 11-9-2001 involving duty of Rs. 1,07,442/-. But report of that laboratory did not deal about invoice No. 0005 dated 3-4-2001 and No. 0453 dated 29-8-2001. Nor Revenue insisted for an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or examining of the aforesaid laboratory expert and that was denied on the ground that that being a report but not an oral evidence, such a documentary evidence is reliable and no cross examination is permissible. 7. In view of the aforesaid observations by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), benefit of doubt goes in favour of the respondent since nothing is controverted by Revenue leading any c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e against Indo Alusys Industries has only received attention of the Bench. Therefore, in absence of any appeal by Revenue against imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- each on Shri Pradeep Jain, Managing Director, Shri A.K. Goel, Sr. General Manager, Shri M.S. Subramanian, Dy. General Manager and Shri Dinesh Kumar Batra, Excise officer, the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in res .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X