TMI Blog1999 (10) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , ld. Consultant submitted that the authorities below had not taken into account the submissions made by the appellants in reply to the Show Cause Notice. He submits that the allegation against the appellants, viz., that there was excess balance of C.I. Castings and weight at the time of the visit by the Officers to the appellant s factory premises and recorded in Annexure-A, was based on wrong as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... According to the appellants, the difference as noticed by the Officers was due to the fact that at the time of physical verification of the stock, no cent per cent weighing was done by the Officers but weight was arrived at by an eye estimation only. Ld. Consultant submitted that though the appellants had taken up this point before the Asst. Commissioner at the time of the adjudication proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... below since no finding has been given either in the Ordcr-in-Original or in the Order-in-Appeal relating to the claim presently made by the ld. Consultant. 3. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the appellants have by letter dated 12-6-1996 in reply to the SCN disputed the figures shown in the Annexure to the SCN and had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e verified only on examination of the relevant records, I am in agreement with the appellants that this is a fit case for remand to the original Adjudicating Authority. 4. Accordingly, I remand this matter to the jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner to examine the defence taken by the appellants in para 4 of their letter datted 12-6-1996 in reply to the SCN. The Asst. Commissioner will no doubt fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
