2018 (9) TMI 728 - AT - Central Excise

Undervaluation of goods - HDPE bags - Held that - The First Appellate Authority in para No. 7 has specifically considered the issue of a particular chit No. 84 dated 20.01.2001 and invoice No. 768 dated 21.01.2001 raised in respect of a specific purchaser of the appellant and came to a conclusion that similarities on this account between the chit and corresponding invoice. He has done a factual verification on this issue and hence we find that on facts there is no dispute as to that appellant had collected additional amounts over and above the amounts which were shown on the excise invoice. Tthe impugned order is correct and legal and does not suffer from any infirmity - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Under valuation of finished products - HDPE bags; Examination of recovered documents indicating additional payments; Time limitation for issuing show cause notice.

Analysis:
The case revolves around the under valuation of clearances of finished products, specifically HDPE bags, by the appellants. This appeal marks the third round of litigation before the Tribunal. In previous instances, the Bench directed the lower authorities to scrutinize documents recovered, particularly chits suggesting additional payments by the appellant. The Adjudicating Authority, in response to this direction, analyzed and upheld the demands raised. The appellant's grounds before the Tribunal echo those presented to the First Appellate Authority, asserting that the Adjudicating Authority failed to thoroughly examine the chits and that the show cause notice was issued beyond the period of limitation from the Department's knowledge of the additional payments indicated in the chits.

Upon review, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's contentions. The First Appellate Authority extensively evaluated a specific chit (No. 84, dated 20.01.2001) and its corresponding invoice (No. 768, dated 21.01.2001) related to a particular purchaser of the appellant. The Authority concluded that there were significant similarities between the chit and the invoice, indicating the collection of additional amounts beyond what was reflected in the excise invoice. The factual verification conducted by the Authority confirmed the appellant's receipt of extra payments. Moreover, the First Appellate Authority appropriately addressed the issue of time limitation, determining that the show cause notice was not time-barred, a decision deemed correct by the Tribunal.

In light of the above findings, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order as correct and legally sound, devoid of any deficiencies. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, affirming the decision of the lower authorities.