9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te - for the appellant K. Poddar, D.R. - for the respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal : 1. Both sides are in appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 10/09/2008 as search was conducted in the factory premises of the assessee and panchnama was drawn. On the basis of panchnama it was found that there was shortage of inputs and finished goods are lying in excess in their factory premises. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arch itself. Aggrieved from the said order confirming demand against the assessee and imposing penalty thereon, they are in appeal. For the reduction of penalty to the tune of 25%, the revenue is in appeal. 3. The Ld. Counsel for assesses submits that in this case during the course of search, the stock taking was done on eye estimation basis moreover, on presumptions and no actual wheighment was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. A.R. submitted that during the course of investigation wheighment was done and same has been admitted by Shri Vijay Gupta who admitted that as per represented samples average of 19 Kg of the wheighment was done. In that circumstances, it is established that there was shortage at the time of search. It was further submitted that Shri Vijay Gupta himsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee repeatedly asked for supply of the weighement slips which has not been provided to the assessee. As wheighment details has not been produced by the revenue, in that circumstances, it is concluded that the wheighment has been done on eye estimation basis. On this basis, the demand cannot be confirmed against the assessee on the shortage of inputs. Therefore, the demand of Rs. 6,70,766/- is s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
