9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dt.10/03/2006 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, for short "The Tribunal." 2. The brief facts, apparent on the face of record, is that on the basis of a survey an order came to be passed by the Joint Commissioner, on the basis whereof, he came to the conclusion that there was shortage in the goods at the time of physical verification on 15/07/2002 & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (Appeals), who vide order dt.05/02/2004 substantially accepted the claim of the respondent-assessee and set aside the confiscation of 60MT of G.M. Balls and reduced the Excise duty and penalty to Rs. 46,386/- from 1,69,631/- after analyzing the evidence on record. 4. Dissatisfied with the setting aside of confiscation and reduction/deletion of the duty and penalty by the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f survey and no proper explanation was offered by the respondent-assessee. He submits that substantial question of law arises out of the impugned order passed by the tribunal. 6. We have considered the arguments advanced by the ld. counsel for the appellant and also perused the impugned order. The Commissioner (Appeals), after analyzing the material on record and after perusing the register, name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee is fabricated or false and when the said finding has not even been challenged before the Tribunal, then admittedly the respondent-assessee was able to prove his case and found favour with the two appellate authorities. In our view, there is concurrent finding of fact by both the Appellate authorities and is a pure finding of fact. 7. In our view, the impugned order is based on appreciati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
