TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (2) TMI 440
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the Respondent. [Order per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. - All these appeals are directed against the same order. Therefore, they were heard together and are disposed of under this common order. 2. First appellant M/s. Triveny Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. is the manufacturer of Cotton yarn. The other two appellants are purchasers of Cotton yarn from the first appellant. From 1995 the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is statement Shri Satpal, Chairman of the Company informed that the Unit had facility to manufacture only cheese cones. 4. Based on what was observed during the verification and the statement of Shri Satpal, show cause notice was issued on 31-8-2000 alleging that the appellant's entire production from June, 1995 to March, 1997 was only cotton yarn on cone and that whatever clearance was made....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... could manufacture only cheese cones, it is being shown that the appellant had, under a letter dated 6-6-95, intimated the jurisdictional Superintendent about the installing of a reeling machine in its factory for starting production of hank yarn from 5-6-95. The learned Counsel has also taken us to RGI Register for the period 1995-96 and shown that, on a daily basis, the appellant was showing the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce shown by the appellant of yarn on cones was much less then the clearance shown of hank yarn. He also emphasized that the statement of the Chairman merited acceptance. 7. Except for the discrepancy noticed in the stock on the date of verification, there is no evidence supporting the Revenues case. Then, that consignment is not the subject of the present proceedings. Applying that evidence....