2003 (2) TMI 322

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er per : S.S. Kang, Member (J)] -  The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the demand of Rs. 11,16,854/- and Rs. 29,506/- was dropped. 2. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. The notice issued to the respondents was received back with the postal remarks 'the factory was closed'. Therefore, t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Commissioner (Appeals). The only contention of the Revenue is that this explanation given by respondent is not acceptable. Revenue had not produced any evidence to show that the goods manufactured by the respondents were not entered in the private records or the goods entered in the statutory records are not the same goods which were mentioned in the private record. In the circumstances, we find n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X