2016 (3) TMI 96

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ORDER PER ASHOK JINDAL: The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein Commissioner (A) has dropped the demand against the respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent is manufacturer of Zinc Oxide. An investigation was conducted at the end of the supplier of the goods i.e. the first stage dealer M/s. R. K. Enterprise owned by Shri R. K. Gupta. On the basis of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ore me. 3. The Ld. AR submits that in this case Ld. Commissioner (A) has added while concluding his findings that no case is made out against the respondent. In fact, there were enough corroborative evidence in the form of the statement of transporters and the statement of Shri R. K. Gupta, proprietor of M/s. R. K. Enterprises. Therefore, impugned order be set aside. 4. Heard the parties. Consid .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the basis of corroborative evidence, therefore, no cross examination is to be given. In fact, the statement of Shri R. K. Gupta has been retracted on the first available opportunity before chief metropolitan Magistrate. These things have not been considered by the adjudicating authority while adjudicating the matter. 6. I have perused the records. 7. On perusal of the record one of the transport .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X