2004 (9) TMI 496

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Lajja Ram, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  In this appeal, the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned order vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the Order-in-original of the adjudicating authority who confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 2,49,469/- with penalty of equal amount against the respondents and separate penalty on its partner D.S. Sodhi of Rs. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....moval of the goods by the respondents. Therefore, the impugned order is perfectly valid. 4. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. 5.  The perusal of the record shows that duty demand was raised from the respondents on the allegation of clandestine removal of the goods during the period in dispute, involving duty of Rs. 2,49,469/- through show cause notice; which ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... respondents firm. No evidence regarding the excessive use of the raw material or consumption of the electricity by the respondents had been also brought on record. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals), in my view, under these circumstances, had rightly concluded that the charge of clandestine removal of the goods without payment of duty by the respondents, did not stand proved. 6. It is ....