9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order where demand of duty of Rs.1,97,698/- has been confirmed along with interest which can be reduced to 25% if the same is paid within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. 2. The facts of the case are that, on visit to the factory of the appellants on 9.1.2003, it was found that the appellant was clearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own to them. Moreover, no corroborative evidence has been brought on record. To support his contention, he relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Monarch (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner - 2006 (197) ELT 396 (Tri.-Kolkata). 4. On the other hand, learned SDR opposed the contention of the learned counsel and submitted that this case is made out on the basis of investigation cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion or further. That statement is a voluntary statement given by the Accountant of the appellant-company. In view of these observations, the case law relied upon by the learned counsel is not relevant to the facts of this case. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order. Same is upheld. As the appellant has paid the duty before issuance of the SCN, and there is no quantificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
