TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Enhancement Petition filed by the State in a preemptive manner - Held that:- Tribunal has confirmed the actual finding of stock discrepancy at 19.750 grams and not 2017.250 grams, based on a certificate produced before the it from Bombay Mint dated 29.3.1988 - The Tribunal, by applying the principle of proportionality, has fixed the stock deficit at ₹ 6,000/-, approximately, and by adding another 50% of ₹ 3000/-, has arrived the turnover at ₹ 9000/-, which cannot be said to be either irrational or against the principle of law. We are of the view that the Tribunal has in fact followed the proportionality theory, which cannot be found fault with - Decided against Revenue. - Tax Case Revision No.1885 of 2006 - - - Dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7-88 the Enforcement Wing of the Central Excise Department has made certain inspections, in which certain defects were noticed. It appears, before the Enforcement Wing, the assessee has produced certain documents. It was based on the said inspection by the Enforcement Wing, the authorities under the TNGST Act revised the assessment on the basis that there has been a deficiency of 2,017.250 grams of gold. The assessing authority has arrived at an estimation of suppression on stock variation at ₹ 6,13,244/- and also has added five times on the actual suppression towards omissions and also imposed penalty under Section 16(2) of the TNGST Act. It was as against the said order of the assessing authority, the assessee filed appeal before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said contention. There is no provision under the TNGST Act to enable the authority under the Act to adopt any other procedure followed by the Central Excise Department. In the absence of any enquiry conducted by the authority under the TNGST, in our view, the Revenue has not done its duty in a proper manner. Therefore, the question of approbation and reprobation does not arise. Accordingly, substantial question of law (1) is answered in favour of the assessee and as against the Revenue. 8. In as far as the substantial question of No.(2) is concerned, on the face of it, it relates to a factual issue, which does not require any interference and accordingly, the said question of law also is answered against the Revenue. 9. Substantial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
