TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (6) TMI 149
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Appellant. Shri Rama Rao, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - In both these appeals a common question of law and facts are involved and hence these are taken up together for disposal by this common order. 2. Appeal filed by Vigneswara Nut Powder Packers arises from the Order-in-Appeal No. 279/86(M), dated 10-12-1996 while appeal of Raghavendra Ente....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctors concerned to verify that the Central Excise duty was not passed on to the customers to avoid unjust enrichment. In pursuance of the High Court's order, the AC took up scrutiny of the amounts paid by the appellants as Central Excise duty. He found that between 16-4-1985 to 30-4-1985 a total amount of Rs. 1,90,980/- was paid as Central Excise duty. He examined the books of accounts and records....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in their account and in the balance sheet Central Excise is shown as debtor and M/s. Crane Betel Nut Powder as creditors. They also relied upon the CEGAT judgment but the Collector did not agree with their contention and without due regard to the evidence produced by them rejected their claim. 5. The order of the Collector in the case of appellants Rghavendra Enterprises is also identica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... show that these amounts have been shown in the account as loan. It is his contention that the authorities should have scrutinised these accounts and accepted the same. It is his contention that non examination of this material documents had led to passing of a non-speaking order. He also referred to certain ledger accounts and affidavit filed by Nagaraju, Auditor and also the affidavit filed by G....