9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MR.) For the Respondent: SHRIMATI C. ALAM (GUPTA), ADVOCATE ORDER Per Dr. D. M. Misra; These two Miscellaneous Applications are filed by the Revenue seeking early hearing of the Stay Petitions bearing Nos. E/S/1215/12(Appeal No.E/A/748/12) and E/S/80164/13(Appeal No.E/A/749/12) relating to the Respondents namely M/s. Mokalbari Tea Estate and M/s. Lukwah Tea Estate respectively. 2. Ld. AR for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authority be taken in accordance with law. Subsequent to the said direction, Revenue filed these Miscellaneous Applications seeking early hearing of the Stay Petitions. 3. Heard the ld. Advocate for the Respondents. The ld. Advocate for the Respondents has no objection to grant early hearing of the Stay Petitions. 4. In these circumstances, the Miscellaneous Applications for early hearing of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The ld. AR for the Revenue further submitted that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had heavily relied upon the relevant RT-12 returns filed by the Respondents with the Department. It is his submission that there is no column in the RT-12 returns from where it could be ascertained that the substantial expansion by increasing more than 25% of the existing capacity of production, was carried out by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d a specific finding that the expansion undertaken by the Respondents was less than 25% of the existing capacity, a fact not considered by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). We also find that the Respondents had taken a plea before the Adjudicating Authority that the fact relating to expansion of the capacity of production being more than 25% of the existing capacity, could have ascertained from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
