2014 (3) TMI 272

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) is admitted on the following substantial questions of law have been framed for consideration:- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Joint Commissioner was right in revising the order of the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner only on the basis of the statement recorded at the time of inspection, ignoring the explanation given at the time of assessment is correct in law? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Joint Commissioner was right in rejecting the explanation of the appellant, following a circular made in J1/45976/90 dated 16.07.1990 by the Department is correct in law? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Joint Commissioner wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ommissioner pointed out that even after taking note of the purchases, admittedly, there was some stock variation and the appellants had also not maintained some of the basis records, required to be maintained by them, hence, an adhoc addition of Rs.25,000/- assessable at 10% was levied by the appellate Assistant Commissioner. As far as penalty was concerned, the appellate Assistant Commissioner found that it could be levied in cases where the stock variation was more and accordingly, the appellate Assistant Commissioner deleted the penalty levied under Section 12 (3) of the Act. 6. The order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was suo moto reviewed by the Joint Commissioner. After going through the records, the Joint Commissione....