2009 (2) TMI 379

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was not able to examine the claim without evidence being adduced by the appellant before him. Therefore, the demand of Rs. 55,529 was confirmed. Held that- Representative engaged has not paid proper stamp duty on the authorisation. He is directed to deposit the same in the course of day before Registry. The order passed aforesaid shall only be operative upon deposit of c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ellate Authority. Appeal was decided on the basis of the materials on record. 3. Heard both sides and perused the record. 4. Although this matter was fixed for hearing of stay application, it appears that for prevention to adduce evidence, the appellant has suffered. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) not having passed any order relating to pre-deposit, it would be improper to give sanction to the act .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X