9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner (Appeals) is reasonable. Consider that it would be appropriate to treat the matter as closed. Accordingly, reject the appeal filed by the Revenue. - E/2245/2001 - A/36/2010-WZB/C-II/EB - Dated:- 21-1-2010 - S/Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) and Ashok Jindal, Member (J) Shri S.S. Katiyar, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri V. Sridharan, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)]. - The issue involved in this case is under valuation of pigments dyes and binders cleared by the appellants during the period from 1985-86 to 1995-96. Eight show cause notices had been issued from 1986-96 which after two rounds of litigation up to the level of Commissioner (Appeals), have finally reached the Tribunal. The Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fort to finalise the value based on CAS-4. 3. On the other hand learned advocate for the respondents submits that as can be seen from the show cause notices, Department has computed the value in the work sheet totally arbitrarily and has loaded the prices unilaterally by adding 10% for each year. No indication as to under which rule this has been done is made available. Further, he also submits that it is not correct to say that the appellants had not given any details. He submits that appellants had submitted cost sheets to the Department but there are absolutely no findings as regards why the same were not acceptable to the Department. The Original Adjudicating Authority simply rejected the calculations made by the appellants on the gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prove under valuation as laid down in the case of UOI v. Hind Lamps reported in 1981 (8) E.L.T. (Del.), which they have failed to bring about in any manner. It needs to be appreciated here that inspite of no adducement of evidence for under valuation during the relevant period by the department, the appellant, themselves on their own admitted that an amount of Rs. 18,01,878/- remained to be paid by them in respect of the show cause notices as mentioned by the appellant at para 15 in statement of facts. 9. The method adopted by the department by loading the values by 10% on the basis of notional value to the price list of 1980, 1983 and 1986 years is arbitrary and value arrived and are highly inflated and the Apex Court in such cases has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any manner. 10. It is observed that inspite of the prolonged detailed investigation conducted by the Department for more than 18 years, the Department has so far not been able to produce any concrete evidence to establish the said undervaluation by the appellants and as such, the appellants admittal of Rs. 18,01,878/- should be accepted, and since the said is already paid by the appellant, as claimed by the appellant, no further action is warranted at this belated stage. 11. I find the imposition of penalty of 20% of the disputed amount imposed by the adjudicating authority seems to be too harsh accordingly I find it proper to reduce it to 10% of the duty confirmed which comes to Rs. 1,80,188/- as also laid down in the case of Prem Ph ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
