2009 (3) TMI 691

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Chand, DR, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  Ld. Counsel for the appellant vehemently objects the order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on 28-3-2006. She has challenged that order on two counts submitting that there was no shortage of 2.373 MT of kraft paper nor there was any clandestine removal of 4343.452 MT of such goods for which the appellate order shall not survive. She als....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....estine removal of manufacture of 4343.452 MT of kraft paper. Both the authorities have thoroughly examined the evidence of the partner Shri Bharat Patel that was recorded on 28-1-2004. Ld. Counsel having failed to provide a basis how statement recorded from Shri Bharat Patel shall be disputed. She could not rule out questionable modus operandi of Appellant. Therefore, the evidence that was gathere....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e to be different from the facts and circumstances that was in the cited decision by the ld. counsel. When the partner who is fully involved in the business has given a statement, that has provided support to the case of Revenue. Therefore the order passed by the authorities below remained untouched. 3. Heard both the sides and perused the record. 4. There is no doubt that certain ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e the allegation made by Revenue. The present case being quite different from the case cited by ld. counsel in the manner and extent stated above and there is no cogent evidence at all led by the appellant before the authorities below to make re-conciliation of the discrepancy in goods, the appellant has failed to defend in the eyes of law. Added to the above, possession of the questionable docume....