TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it is still to be appreciated and re considered as to whether those documents and even the verification report pertains to the same invoices which are the subject matter of the Show Cause Notice, as has been mentioned by ld. D.R. It is also to be reconsidered as to whether the documents on record including the invoices are with respect to the amounts mentioned in the Show Cause Notice and whether those documents are sufficient. to falsify the allegations in the Show Cause Notice. This re assessment and re-consideration is only possible at the end of the adjudicating authority below itself. Matter accordingly is remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider the entire matter in the light of the documents produced by the appellant - a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med vide Order-in-Original No.32/2014 dated 26.02.2014 vide which rather a demand of Rs.1,54,639/- was confirmed with the imposition of penalty of the same amount. The appeal against the said order has been rejected vide the Order under challenge. 3. I have heard Mr. B.S. Rajesh, ld. Counsel for the Appellant and Ms. Tamanna Alam, ld. D.R. for Revenue. 4. Ld. Counsel for appellant has mentioned that all requisite documents were provided by the appellant to the Department at the initial stage of investigation itself. The documents were supplied pursuant to the Audit Report dated 22.02.2011. Appellant has duly replied the same vide its letter dated 25.07.2011 and 20.06.2011. Ld. Counsel has impressed upon the enclosures specifically men ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner (Appeals) has been meticulous while discussing all the documents which were produced before him. However, ld. DR has expressed no objection in case the documents on record are allowed to be re-examined and liability, if any, to be re-assessed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record as well as the order under challenge, it is observed that all the proposed demands have meticulously and separately been dealt with by Commissioner (Appeals). However, the proposal for those demands about recovering those amounts from the appellants has been confirmed solely on the ground that despite assurance, appellant has failed to produce the original documents and in absence of those documents, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
