9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt finding of fact that demand of duty on the basis of Notebook is not sustainable in absence of sufficient corroborative evidence. It has been further held by both the authorities that Invoice No. 64 dated 7th January, 2005 cannot be rejected for three days delay to produce before the Central Excise Officers. The question involved in the present appeal relates to question of facts and there is co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the excise goods accompanied with Invoice No. 63 dated 7th January, 2005 of the respondent-company. On verification of the loaded truck, it was found excess quantity of 11,500 Kgs. over and above the quantity shown in the invoice. On 11th January, 2005, the respondent No. 2, Director of the respondent No. 1 appeared before the Central Excise Officers and produced Invoice No. 64 dated 7th Jan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judicating Authority. 5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for appellant admitted that the Invoice No. 64 dated 7th January, 2005 was produced before the Adjudicating Authority even before issuing notice to show case in the matter. The Appellate Authority as well as Tribunal, both have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that demand of duty on the basis of Notebook is not sustain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
