2007 (2) TMI 233

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2006 which have been filed by the revenue under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, challenging the orders dated 2-2-2006 passed by the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal raising same question of fact and law. The Tribunal has found it as a fact that there was a small discrepancy notices in the stock on the date of verification but there was no evidence supporting the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the revenue after the verification with the purchaser as no stock with them was found. The statement of the Chairman has not been given higher evidentiary value than the statutory record and accordingly it has been held that allegation made by the revenue could not be established. 2. Despite the aforementioned findings recorded by the Tribunal, the revenue has claimed that the following substan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng the statement of the Chairman, a finding of fact has been recorded that the allegations levelled against the assessee were against the statutory record available. It is well-settled that if a Judge of fact has reached a particular conclusion on the basis of available evidence then merely because another view by another Judge of fact is possible, would not constitute the basis for interference i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X