9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , as far as the calculation of duty demand is concerned. Accordingly, the plea for rectification of this observation is rejected as it is without merit. With reference to paragraph 20 of the Final Order, it has been contended that the following observation of the Tribunal made in the paragraph is erroneous “adjudicating authority in the impugned order has discussed and confirmed the duty liability on the basis of evidences discussed at (i) and (ii) of above para - On perusal of the record of the case, we find that the observations made in paragraph 20 above are based on record of the case and there is no error apparent which requires correction. Hence, the plea for rectification relating to para 20 is rejected. With reference to parag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vation of the Tribunal that the authenticity of the evidences relating to lime and cotton canvas bags purchased without proper accounting has not been challenged, is an apparent error on record. The Final Order in this case was passed by the Tribunal as per the directions of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court which remanded the matter. The appellant has not raised, either before the Hon ble High Court or before this Tribunal, the question of authenticity and veracity of the private records recovered by Revenue during the search proceedings. The grounds before the Hon ble High Court was that there was mismatch in the determination of duty demand between the show-cause notice and the Statement of Facts, as far as the calculation of duty dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relates to the period 1.4.2005 to 3.6.2005 and is based on the private record recovered called as BNV . Similarly in para (ii) referred above, the duty demand of ₹ 2,38,17,528/- made in the Order-in-Original was based on unaccounted cotton canvass bags supplied by M/s. Divya Enterprises. The adjudicating authority in the impugned order has discussed the quantification of the duty liability of about ₹ 46 lakhs as above in paragraph 72 and 79 of Order-in-Original found at pages 106 - 109. Similarly, the quantification of ₹ 2.38 crores has been discussed in paragraph 48 found at pages 97-98 of the Order-in-Original. As discussed above, on perusal of the record of the case, we find that the observations made in paragraph 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
