TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has affirmed the order-in-original regarding the duty and penalty against the appellants. 2. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. At the relevant time the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Plastic Parts of Motor Vehicles, Telephone, Switch gear, computers etc. The duty of the disputed amount has been confirmed against the appellants on account of shortage of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he authorities below both have also in their orders so recorded, but it is factually not so, as in his statement he did not make such admission. Simple attestation of the Panchnama as a witness by him, which was prepared by the officer at the spot, could not lead a conclusion that he had admitted the shortage of the finished goods, specially when such an admission is missing in his statement recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... personally liable for penalty under Rule 209A has not been accepted by the authorities below to be a sufficient evidence under the law, as he had been absolved of his liability under the said rule. That being so, the same could not be taken to be a conclusive proof against the appellant's company for confirming duty. The appellant's company in order to test the correctness of the Panchnama, sought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being defective, were taken for use in the factory has not been considered by the authorities below. In the absence of evidence of clandestine removal of the goods on their part, their plea could not be brushed aside without having sufficient cause, by the authorities below. The initial burden was on the revenue to prove the allegations as contained in the SCN against the appellants for raising t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
