9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Loni, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that Appellant No. 1, finding certain capital goods in its factory idle, intended to make productive use thereof in the factory of Appellant No. 2, transferred the same with no intention to evade duty and there was also no evidence against the appellants to prove any mischief committed by them. Bona fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch was un-called, although that was reduced to Rs. 50,000/- by the lower authority in appeal. 2. Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue, fairly submitted that the value of machinery declared by the appellants was un-questionable but there was contravention of the Excise Law and Procedure, for which the lower appellate authority having considered the matter most leniently, passed appropriate order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by Excise Team on 19-12-2000 did not result in any material which shall speak against the appellants to impute them to coercive measures of law. 4. It was found from record that the ld. Commissioner has himself found that there was a controversy between the Revenue and the assessee on exactness of the value of the capital goods for deposit of duty. Such controversy having been gone in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
