TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 231
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., for the Respondent. [Order per: Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - All the appeals, one filed by the Revenue and two by the assessees, are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. As per facts on record appellant M/s. Unichem India is engaged in the manufacture of basic chromium sulphate. Their factory was visited by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eedings. Proposal to confirm duty of Rs. 20,000/- based upon a consignment note of M/s. Shanti Roadways was also made. The notice also relied upon the statement of the authorized representative. 3. The said show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 5-12-1997 culminated into an order passed by the original adjudicating authority confirming the demands of duties, as proposed in the notice a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion cannot be upheld, he relied upon various decisions of the Tribunal. For the above findings, he also relied upon an affidavit of the customers showing that nothing has been received by them without payment of duty. The said part of the Commissioner (Appeals) order is impugned by the Revenue. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 20,000/- on the basis of the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e full evidence on records and has come to a right conclusion that in the absence of affirmative evidence to show clandestine removal, the charges cannot be upheld. We accordingly reject the appeal filed by the Revenue. 5. As regards confirmation of demand of Rs. 20,000/-, learned advocate fairly agrees that on the face of the recovery of the consignment note and the appellant's failure to explai....