TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (6) TMI 778
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... impugned order. The order was passed ex parte because on an earlier occasion also, when the appeal came up, nobody was present for the assessee and the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution and even after restoration also, they were not interested in pursuing the appeal. It appears they were only interested in restoring the appeal and keeping it pending. That was the reason for dismissing the appeal of the assessee on 3-2-2012. 2. On 9-5-2012, when the matter came up for restoration of appeal of the assessee again, the Counsel was told that restoration will be allowed only if he is willing to argue the case on merits on the same day, whereupon he asked for adjournment of the matter. Thereafter, the case has come up for hearing tod....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed on the assessee were upheld. The penalty imposed on the partner was dropped. Aggrieved by the order, both the assessees and Revenue have filed appeals. These appeals are being considered in this proceeding. 6. The contention of the appellant is that on the date of visit by Revenue officers, the material available was not actually weighed. On that date, there was a stock of 329.160 MTs of raw material and 99.910 MTs of finished goods lying in stock as per the books of account. The factory had only one small weighing scale of the capacity of 1 MT. It is their contention that if 300 MTs of raw material was to be weighed using that weighing scale, it would have taken more than 10 days. The very fact that the work was completed in two ....