2004 (7) TMI 577

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....learned Commissioner (Appeals) has overlooked the statements of the Director and the employees of the respondent No. 1 company, and wrongly reversed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority who held the respondents guilty of clandestine removal of 8,000 kgs. of laminated pouch rolls during the period July to October, 1998. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned Counsel has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order and argued that the alleged statements of the Director and employees of the respondents have been rightly not accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) being contrary to the documentary evidence brought on record. In support of his contention, he has referred to the ra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... clandestine removal of the goods involving duty of the above said amount, but their statements had been wrongly ignored by the Commissioner (Appeals). After going through the impugned order, in my view, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly not placed any value on the alleged confessional statements of the above said respondents. The respondents had produced the documentary evidence i.e. the copy of the bill dated 21-9-1998 showing the purchase of structures for the printing machines; copy of the invoices dated 22-9-1998 for purchase of shafts & Pully for the machines installed; copy of the notice dated 12-10-1998 showing the purchase of LDPE Granules on which credit was taken and accounted for in the RG 23-A Part-I & Part-II; cop....