Prabhat Zarda Factory Co. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 16 May, 2018
5. Learned counsel urges that the Tribunal omitted to discuss the
detailed evidence and besides merely placed its imprimatur on the
findings of the Commissioner which is not expected of it. Learned
counsel relied upon the judgment reported as Prabhat Zarda Factory Co.
& Ors. v CCE, Delhi, CEAC No.7-9 of 2018 (decided on 16.5.2018). It
was urged besides that the statements of the proprietor and his raw
material suppliers were interpreted adversely against them and that the
statement of several suppliers, in fact established that there was no
element of bias. It was urged that on a totality of evidence and if one
CEAC Nos.45/2018 & 46/2018 Page 6 of 16
looked into the analysis carried out by the Commissioner - in the order-
in-original, it was evident that the Revenue fell prey to glaring
discrepancies. In this regard, it was highlighted that as against the total
sum of over `6.1 crores, allegedly paid, the appellants allegedly had a
turnover of `5.21 crores. Learned counsel submitted that this was an
inherent improbability, which exposes the findings of the Revenue. He
submitted that, since the CESTAT did not apply its mind, its findings are
perverse.