9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs.13,09,506/- is not covered in Rs.496.0 lakhs. Since the department has not taken any step before or after filing the appeal to find out whether Rs.13,09,506/- lakhs was covered/not covered under Rs.496.0 lakhs. Crying fire is of no avail if one cannot show even a streak of smoke. In these circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower authorities. Therefore, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) order is upheld - Decided against Revenue. - C/615/06-Mum - - - Dated:- 11-9-2013 - S K Gaule, J. For the Appellant : ShriK.S.Mishra, Addl. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent : None PER : S.K.Gaule Heard learned A.R. None present for the respondents. 2. The Revenue filed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... doctrine of unjust enrichment. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), after considering the facts upheld the lower adjudicating authority's order and rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue. Hence the appeal. 4. The contention of the Revenue is that the lower authorities have considered the balance sheet for the year ending December 2003 but have not considered Books of Account or details of Schedule X of the balance sheet for the year 2001. The contention of the Revenue is that as per the balance sheet for the year ending December 2001 the receivable amount was Rs.1,41,10,000/- lakhs whereas the balance sheet for the year ending 2003 when the matter was decided by the lower adjudicating authority shows that receivable amount was only Rs.4, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- which was to be refunded. Firstly I find that all these aspects have been taken into consideration by learned Commissioner (Appeals) in his order. Secondly, the amount of Rs.496.0 lakhs can undoubtedly cover an amount of Rs.13,09,506/- lakhs. If the department had any doubt in this regard nothing prevented them to investigate and establish that the amount of Rs.13,09,506/- is not covered in Rs.496.0 lakhs. The department did not carry out any such exercise. Further the learned A.R made an alternate plea to get the issue re-examined by the lower authorities. I do not think this will serve any purpose, since the department has not taken any step before or after filing the appeal to find out whether Rs.13,09,506/- lakhs was covered/not cove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
