9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (2) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. [Order per : T.P. Nambiar, Member (J)]. - This appeal is filed by the appellants against the order passed by the CCE(A), Bangalore. The CCE(A) stated that the appellants are not entitled to the claim of Rs. 2,700/-. So far as this claim is concerned, the learned Counsel for the appellants contended before us that though challans, under Rule 57F(2) were not produced, the appellants h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lower Appellate Authority that the appellants are not entitled to this claim. 4. In regard to the demand of Rs. 37,973/- the learned Counsel stated that on the day on which verification was done, i.e. on 23-9-1993 there was a factory strike and the officials were not there. The inputs were scattered here and there. Therefore, they could not show the inputs to the officers. He pointed out tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 93 there was no reason why the appellants could not have stated that the inputs were scattered here and there and they could have atleast convinced the officers with respect to the inputs which are lying in the factory. Instead of doing so, the appellants took about two months to intimate the department that the goods were scattered in the premises due to strike in the factory. It is not understoo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c talk the appellants had with their customers. 9. We have considered the submissions. The appellants' contention that reduction in the price took place based on the telephonic talk is not acceptable. In order to substantiate their plea, the appellants should have produced some letters from the customers that there was reduction in the price. In the absence of any evidence in this regard, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
