2014 (2) TMI 415

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1987-88. 3. This revision was admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has erred in not considering that an assessee cannot approbate or reprobate a sworn statement as held in the decision in the case of Yousuff Radio v. The Board of Revenue (CT), 43 ST 525? 2. Whether the order of the Tribunal is perverse in having relied upon the entry in the ledger without verification of the corresponding entry in the basic record, namely, Day Book? 3. Whether the Tribunal has erred in having dismissed the Enhancement Petition filed by the State in a preemptive manner without application of mind?" 4. Despite the Respondent having been served and its na....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 6,13,244/-. When both the appeals were taken together, the Tribunal, while accepting the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the deficit was only to the extent of 19.750 grams, based on a certificate produced before the Tribunal from Bombay Mint dated 29.3.1988, has fixed the approximate stock deficit at Rs. 6000/- and added another Rs. 3000/- being the 50% of actual stock discrepancy, and thereby, sustained the turnover to the extent of Rs. 9000/-. 6. In so far as it relates to the substantial question of law (1) is concerned, it is the contention of the Revenue that the assessee having given a statement before the Central Excise Department cannot be expected to give a different statement before the authorities under th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....old weighing 1997.599 kg were produced fro purification. This is an evidence from a Government source which is difficult to fabricate. This evidence has not been rebutted by the Revenue at any stage. We are of the view that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision that but of the alleged stock discrepancy of 2017.250 grams the stock deficit tha was not satisfactorily explained at the time of inspection was only to the tune of 19.750 grams was correct. But however, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner after making such as observation in para 5 had reverted in para 6 and confirmed the actual suppression of Rs. 6,13,244.00 wrongly. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner should have stood to his guns and sustained only the stock discre....