9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 643X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - This appeal is against the order of the Additional Collector confirming the demand of duty totalling Rs. 2,04,121.87 confiscating fabrics manufactured by the appellant and imposing penalty on the appellant. 2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice of hearing having been issued to it at its designated address. We have there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e because he found that no correlation was possible between the gate passes showing clearances of the cut length of fabrics and the fabrics specified in the lot register. He found that the gate passes did not contain the lot numbers. ln its reply to the notice the appellant had not given the details of the gate passes under which the goods claimed to have been cleared after cutting. It has stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 23,534.82 on 8,603 L. Mtrs, here too the Additional Collector finds that the entries in the lot register pertaining to these did not show gate passes under which they have been cleared although the lot entries have been 'closed' indicating that the goods in question have been cleared. The appellant's contention was that the goods have been cleared on payment of duty, but by mistake the cleara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hence, even in the absence of lot numbers correlation would be possible. If for a moment, we assume that there was more than one lot of fabrics of the same length and composition, the total of these lengths would tally with the total of the length of the unaccounted entries in the lot register. The Additional Collector was therefore right in rejecting this contention. 6. The third ground of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
