1995 (2) TMI 85

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... see and the learned Additional Solicitor General for the Revenue. We have also perused the order of the Tribunal (CEGAT) dated 7th April, 1988. We find from the order that the Tribunal refused to consider the affidavit of Mr. Y.B. Sodawala, Partner of M/s. Janta Soft Drinks, Bombay, as well as the invoices appended thereto on the sole ground that it was filed after a lapse of almost two years. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . 11.70 per crate as against which he received a commission of Rs. 1.20 per crate. From this statement and the use of the expression `commission' an inference came to be drawn that the relationship was not of a principal and principal or that M/s. Janta Soft Drinks was not an independent agent. The question in regard to the inter se relationship between the appellant and M/s. Janta Soft Drinks had .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the opinion that having regard to the above, the proper course would be to remit the matter to the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, for a fresh consideration after allowing the affidavit and the documents appended thereto to be taken on record. As pointed out earlier the Revenue will have a right to cross-examine the deponent if they so desire. The question of penalty would also depend on th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X