TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 829X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tity of 2617 Nos. it is lying in the factory at different location. In such case it was obligatory on the departmental officer to re-visit factory and verify the correctness of the claim of the appellant. Non consideration of request of the appellant is clear violation of principle of natural justice, this shows that the officers made up their mind to make out case without resorting the issue - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals), which came to be rejected, therefore the appellant is before me. 2. Shri. Tarak Gor, Ld. C.A. appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the officer have not carried out the stock taking correctly as the so called shortage goods were very much lying in the factory at different place which was not taken into account. According ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e very much lying in the factory, hence, there was no shortage. 3. Shri. H. M. Dixit, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that panchanama was drawn in the presence of Shri. Prabhudas Parekh, partner of the appellant firm therefore it cannot be said that the stock verification done by the officer is in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... natural justice, this shows that the officers made up their mind to make out case without resorting the issue. It is also observed that appellant subsequently to the stock taking cleared the entire quantity recorded in RG1 on payment of duty. If there is actual shortage, appellant could not have cleared such quantity, this shows that there was actually no shortage of the goods in the stocks and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
