x I Q n This Appeal (roiiliilg on for E1d11'1iSSiOI'1 this day. the Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
This is an appeal by the ei11p}()yer against, the e;’:”dVe’if._passed
by the 13.8.1. Cour’; in E.S.I. Application Nc).57/2505*’
January 2008.
2. Appellant; is the a1:)p}i(:2mt SL8)’.
filed an a1)p1iCai’.ioi1. under See_t_’_i_oi1’i,__T5_» of .'[i’k{.%vv”E.S§.1.ACt. 1948
{hereiriafler referred Io ais.;.i’.l1e e1″oesii’o;ji11g the assessment
order dated 29.8.2005 illveiciev.ii}1de’:’_S.eoi.io.n&: of the Act.
3. Case of 1£1Z>:’§)_'(V3V}}€1’Ij1V1:’~ u”f:h’ait’. the appellant —
estab1.ish.me:ii–..w§i.s;f.i_nsffiecietix.’pifiiodieaily by the E.S.i. h1..=3peci.or.
After i11s.;:pecl:.i_o1A1.»Afr}eeess2iijif’eVi_1d_o1_’sement.s were made in terms of
Ex.A9. I)e::»pi”u:. t.hai.«.’ i.,I”1e V_4c’ii–2iii’i<1":is made for the period from 1993
94 1.0 ,1997'–9S L-1,11d'a"11e§edTt.ha1,, once the inspection is done. on
ireijificaiioii o£«1.he reeo1'd, there is no provision for further
2'i:;sVpe<éi.i:1f1'=oiiee».;;1gair1 and to invoke the provisions of Section 45-
A offihe Ac?i".'i"E–f.i'}ie [C.S.i. Cou.r"t. consideiing the evidence and 21150
Voonsidei'ih:z:1; the profii" and Eoss &1C(3()UI1{. €I'I'OI1€()11S1y found that.
" "iheife a cfiffereiice of amount. ofRs.1.S4.3ES6/– and on the basis
..__wof Whictli. it imposed (roI1t':1*ibu.1;ioi1 of 5.5% on the said 21mo1.m1:.