TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (3) TMI 565
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the Respondent. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. - The above captioned appeals have been directed against the common order-in-original vide which duty and penalties as detailed in the impugned order, have been confirmed against the appellants for the period April to June, 1997 and October, 1997 to December, 1997. 2. The appellants during the above said period were engaged in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellants. But after adjudication, the demand was dropped against them vide order dated 24-2-99 by the adjudicating authority. That order of the adjudicating authority was accepted by the Department. 3. However, during the course of those proceedings, the Counsel for the appellants in his written submissions, mentioned that except lot Numbers 4271, 4230, 6842, 8004, 2088, the other lots....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dispute. In reply to the show cause notice, the appellants had denied the allegations and did not accept the disclosure of the Counsel to be correct. They had also placed on record certain invoices to show that during that period, they had cleared the lots of unfinished fabrics also. The statements recorded and the documents seized during the course of the earlier proceedings, could not be made b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not binding on him in another suit. Similarly, regarding the probative value of admission by the party, the Apex Court in the case of K.S. Srinivasan v. Union of India [AIR 1958 SC 419] has observed that an admission is not conclusive proof of the matter admitted . Therefore, the Revenue was required to carry out the investigation and collect oral and documentary evidence before working out the l....