9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 645X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. [Order]. - This appeal is by Revenue against Order-in-appeal dated 28-4-2005 which allowed the appeal of the respondent. 2. Learned SDR submits that the respondent in this case has suppressed the production of finished goods when fire took place in the factory premises of the respondent on 27-6-99. They have suppressed the production and having suppressed, the claim filed by the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants immediately informed about the same to Range Officer and the Police Department, which is evident from the facts that factual panchnama were drawn on the next day, viz. 28-6-99, by these authorities by visiting the appellant's factory. These facts have not been disputed by the Department and therefore it has to be accepted that the Department was aware of the fire accident of 27-06-99 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ails of the goods destroyed in fire accident. Further, the adjudicating authority had refrained from mentioning the date of audit conducted by CERA party though the SCN and the OIO had referred to the same, it is seen from the copy of the RG 1 Register of the relevant period produced by the appellants that the CERA party conducted audit of assessment records for the period from 1/98 to 10/99 in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... early hit by limitation and not sustainable under the law." 5. It can be seen from the above reproduced portion, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly come to the conclusion that when the officers of the range visited the premises of the respondent on 28-06-99, there cannot be any suppression fraud or mis-statement. Hence, impugned order setting aside the liability on the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
