TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 495X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication No. E/ROM/10220/2018-DB, [Appeal No. E/844/2006-DB] - M/11174/2018 - Dated:- 17-10-2018 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri S.J. Vyas and Shri Devan Parikh, Advocates for the Applicant Shri Jeetesh Nagori, Additional Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per: Raju This ROM application has been filed by M/s. Madhusudan Industries Limited in respect of order No. A/12659/2017 dated 15.09.2017. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant argued that the issues were argued in detail however, the Tribunal order dated 15.09.2017 fails to examine two aspects in their defense. He pointed out that in Para 4(i) and 4(ii), two assertions made by the appellant before the Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arious evidences. The Tribunal examined the averments made by the appellant by letter dated 03.03.2003 to the effect that quantity lying in their premises was consisting of branded goods. The Tribunal also examined the defense of the appellant with respect to this declaration. The Tribunal examined the various transporters documents available on record. The Tribunal examined the facts regarding manipulation done in the transport documents by cutting and over-writing. The Tribunal also rejects certain retractions made by the concerned persons relying on the decision on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Solanki vs. UOI 2009 (233) ELT 0157 (SC). The Tribunal also rejected the defense of the appellant to the ef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal specifically rejected all the other submissions of the appellant. Thus it is apparent that Tribunal rejected submissions regarding statements of certain buyers and the production of unbranded goods in the month of March- April 2003 which was specifically recorded in Para 4(i) and 4(ii) of the order. 5. From the above, it is apparent that Tribunal has considered all the evidences for arriving at the conclusion and rejected the ones which were not found well supported, as evidenced from Para 6.8 of the order. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that Tribunal has not examined all the evidences. 6. As regards the reliance of the ld. Counsel on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s. Vadilal Gases Li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is strange as to why the CESTAT came to the conclusion that it was necessary that the person appointed as a Cost Accountant should be in practice. We do not see any reason as to how the CESTAT came to the conclusion that the Cost Accountant, whose services were availed by the department should not have been engaged because he was an employee of the department and he was not in practice. The aforestated facts clearly show that the CESTAT took a different view in pursuance of the rectification application. The submissions which were made before the CESTAT by the respondent-assessee while arguing the rectification application were also advanced before the CESTAT when the appeal was heard at an earlier stage. The arguments not accepted at an e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the instant case, the evidence which was on record was duly appreciated by the Tribunal at the first instance but the Tribunal made an effort to re-appreciate the evidence and re-appreciation can never be considered as rectification of a mistake. We are, therefore, of the view that the aforementioned judgment would not help the respondent-assessee. 20. So far as judgment delivered in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, 2008 (221) E.L.T. 11 (S.C.), is concerned, there also the Tribunal had not considered certain material which was very much on record and thereby it committed a mistake which was subsequently rectified by considering and appreciating the evidence which had not been consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
