9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (10) TMI 140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants are also making matresses out of such slag goods in their own two units situated at Adityapur and Jugsalai. Appellants were charged with for having mis-declared the quality and value of the goods manufactured by them. A show cause notice dated 1-9-1982 and corrigendum dated 16-5-1985 was issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Jamshedpur alleging that the appellants had given misleading information in their classification lists and price lists with intent to evade duty. They were, therefore, asked to explain why duty amounting to Rs. 1,90,096.98 Paise evaded by them by contravening the provisions of Rules 9(1), 173B, 173C, 173F, 173G(1) read with Rules 198 and 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 should not be rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee to Minsulate India only. Thus, the assessee should have submitted the price list under proviso (iii) to Section 4(1)(a) of the Act which he failed to do hereby contravening the provision of Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2A. It has also been alleged that there is no qualitative difference between the product categorised as `Oil free special quality and `standard superfine quality for which different values have been declared by the manufacturer. When the goods are disposed of direct by the manufacturers, they are categorised as `oil free special quality and duty is paid on the value of Rs. 1650/- per M.T. but when the same product is routed through M/s. Minsulate India, then it is categorised as standard superfine qual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the relevant period. The manufacturer will be liable to pay under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, read with Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the differential duty calculated on the revised assessable value within a month of the communication of such duty liability by the proper officer. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the ground that there was deliberate mis-statement and concealment of facts on the part of the appellants. 4. Shri Gopal Parshad, learned Consultant appearing for the appellants submitted that impugned order was mainly based upon the charges in the corrigendum dated 16-5-1985 and corrigendum was issued after more than 2 years from the date of the issue of the show cause notice and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an opportunity to the appellants to adduce evidence in support of their contention. He argued that relationship among partners of different firms is not a criterion to decide the issue of related person since both the firms are separate and they are legally constituted. There is no mutuality of interest of the appellant s partnership in the affairs of M/s. Minsulate India and vice versa and also there is no evidence to show that share of profit directly or indirectly flowed back to each other. He submitted that it is not even the case of the Department that entire goods were sold to and through M/s. Minsulate India and merely large volume of sale to a particular company itself does not make latter person as a related person and there is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mand if appellants want to submit some more evidence to substantiate their contention but as can be seen from the order all the issues raised by the parties were already considered by the Adjudicating Authority before passing the order. He submitted that originally appellants partnership consisted of all partners (8 partners) and out of 8 partners, three came out and constituted a new partnership under the name of M/s. Minsulate India in the year 1979 and it was arranged in such a manner to divert sale through M/s. Minsulate India and major sale took place through Minsulate India at a lower price as can be seen from page 14 of the order and it was nothing but diversion of sale with their intention to evade payment of duty. He submitted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arger period as well as imposing penalty. 6. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that there is some justification in requesting for remanding the matter since corrigendum dated 11-5-1983 was issued after hearing was over and particularly corrigendum refers to substitution and addition. It seems that appellants have requested one month s time to give reply with reference to the charges made in the corrigendum but the same was not acceded to by the Adjudicating Authority as it was rightly pointed out by the appellant s counsel. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that matter will have to go back for re-consideration by giving one more opportunity to the appellants to adduce evidence in s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
