9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog1988 (8) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iff) from the steel supplied by the Indian Oil Corporation. Proceedings were instituted against them by issue of a show cause notice dated 4th February, 1985 on an allegation that between May 1979 and August 1984 they manufactured and cleared metal containers by deliberately not declaring the value of metal containers, by not taking into consideration the correct cost of metal sheets used in the manufacture of such metal containers and by wilfully suppressing the documents and relevant particulars for arriving at normal prices and also wilful misstatement of facts, which eventually culminated in the present impugned order now appealed against. 3. Shri Laxnni Kumaran, the learned Counsel for the appellants, at the outset, submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 4. Shri Jain, the learned departmental representative submitted that his records also reveal that RT 12 assessments have been finalised till July, 1981 and the appellant had paid the differential duty. The learned D.R. on further scrutiny of the communication of the Supdt. dated 31.12.1985 evidencing finalisation of RT 12 assessment of the appellant till June, 1983 accepted and conceded the same. The learned D.R. urged that inasmuch as the impugned order has been passed pursuant to the show cause notice dated 4.2.1985 when the very assessments upto June 1983 were only in a provisional stage, the order may be set aside keeping the rights of the department intact leaving it open to the department to take such action against the appellant a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mainly on the basis that the reconciliation statement submitted by the appellant, had not been signed by an authorised officer. The plea of the learned Counsel in this context was that no officer need be specially authorised and the statements were in fact signed by Materials Officer and the adjudicating authority has not held even in the impugned order that the reconciliation statement is not either acceptable or genuine. We are inclined to think that in any event it would have been open to the adjudicating authority to verify the genuineness of the document and the entries therein while considering the issues by making a reference to the l.O.C. if necessary, which unfortunately does not appear to have been done. Be that as it may, for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
