9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (10) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. - Briefly stated the facts of this case are as follows : M/s. G.S. Processors, the appellants cleared the textile fabrics processed by them which was detected in the transit. On the basis of this violation the duty liability has been imposed on the appellants despite their protestation that the value taken at the behest of the Pan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods. Ld. Advocate therefore, submits that it would be improper to rely on value stated in panchanama on the question of the valuation of goods for the purpose of levy of Additional Excise Duty. 3. As regards the penalty, ld. advocate submits that no penalty can be imposed in view of the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Pioneer Silk Mills v. U.O.I. relied upon in 1994 (71) E.L. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the Panchanama to be correct one and determined the levy of duty accordingly. He has also confiscated the goods and imposed the redemption fine and imposed penalty as well. He has also given the option to the appellant to redeem them on payment of certain fine. This approach of the Commissioner adjudicating the case, in our view, is not correct. It is apparent that two panchas who have stated th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner to cause the proper market inquiry, disclose the report about the market inquiry to the appellant and then determine the levy of duty on the textile fabrics. This exercise will have to be done by the Additional Commissioner in accordance with the principles of natural justice. 6. As regards the penalty, we agree with the ld. advocate that in view of the Delhi High Court judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
