TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (3) TMI 173
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding the order of adjudication. The first Appellate Order confirmed the allegation of purchase of 3.5 MT iron and steel product transported by Truck No. OAO-1314 holding that such were clandestinely removed. The second allegation of excess stock of 486.845 MT (not 480.845 for the difference between 1068 MT physically found while RG-I record show 581.155 MT) were unaccounted. To come to such a conc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... R. Parida and M/s. S.L. Agarwal and Co. although not relied without cross-examination, without bringing any nexus, holding S.L. Agarwal and Co. as sister concern of the appellant was without evidence for which the challan showing delivery of 3.5 MT of iron steel products sold by S.L. Agarwal and Co. was undeniable. Such bona fide purchase by the appellant cannot be held to be a clandestine remova....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... brought to day light proving their ill design to evade duty. For all these reasons, the first appellate order was not base less but sustainable. 4. Heard both sides and perused the record. 5. Record does not reveal that there was evidence in possession of the Lower Appellate Authority to hold that M/s. S.L. Agarwal and Co. was a sister concern of the appellant. The reason why cross-examination ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t appellate order calls for modification. 6. So far as the second allegation is concerned, the excess stock of 486.845 was admittedly found in the course of investigation in the factory of the appellant and there was neither any convincing evidence or explanation put forward by the appellant to prove its bona fide and also to establish that the records maintained were proper exhibiting such stock....