Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1975 (12) TMI 166

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....made in the appeal both written and oral. The substantive submission is that there was no evidence with the Central Excise Officers, who had reported the case against the appellant unit that their Kinari Bazar firm had received the subject wires and cables from their factory at Sita Ram Bazar. They also state that the party of the Central Excise Officers had resumed 12 purchase vouchers and that t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....were the same unit though legally they may be different. The contention of the appellant is that the Central Excise Officers have no evidence to prove that Kinari Bazar firm received the subject coils from their factory at Sita Ram Bazar. Since the two firms are for practical purposes the same, the case against the appellant unit was on reasonable grounds of suspicion. I further observe that these....