9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als). The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the findings in the Order-in-Original, both, on duty liability and penalty. 3. Mr. Shah would submit that this appeal raises substantial questions of law and those formulated at pages 7 and 8 of the appeal paper-book. He would submit that the Tribunal's order is unjust and unfair, because it contains no reasons. Here, a partnership firm has been charged with not paying total duty, though shortages have been admitted. Mr. Shah submits that the Tribunal has proceeded on the footing that because the shortages are admitted, there is no adjudication required and the liability is undisputed. Therefore, it proceeded to confirm the demand. 4. Mr. Shah alternatively submits that given the admiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and admitted a short levy. There was a deposit of a sum of Rs. 11,14,868/-. 7. In the circumstances, the finding of fact and consistent with the admission as also the figures of physical stock taking do not suffer from any perversity or any error of law apparent on the face of the record. The findings of fact are consistent with the factual materials. 8. The appeal therefore, does not raise any substantial question of law insofar as the duty liability is concerned. 9. However, on the question of penalty, we have found that in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and particularly in para 10 thereof, there is a finding and that finding reads as under :- "10. As appellant stated that the department has not establi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the inputs and finished goods cannot be ignored and this was admitted by the appellants and they have paid the duty of Rs. 11,14,868/- in RG-23A-I vide Entry No. 284/24-6-1994 and further promised to pay the remaining amount and requested to waive the SCN and for lenient action vide their letter dated 21-6-1994. This is more than sufficient to establish the suppression of fact. I have also found that the appellant have not produced any documentary evidence before me. The appellant further stated in the grounds of appeal that their submission vide letter dated 30-3-2000 has not been considered by the adjudicating authority is also not acceptable. It is seen from the OIO No. 45/2000 the adjudicating authority has taken care of their subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
