9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (1) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mand of Rs. 9,43,256.48 had been made which after the calculation made in pursuance of the adjudication order had come to Rs. 41,641.60. The matter relates to the determination of the assessable value of the goods weighing scales manufactured by the appellants and the differential duty had been demanded on the ground that the bulk of the sales were made through related persons. 2. We have heard Shri Naveen Mullick, ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri K. Shiv Kumar, ld. JDR for the respondent Revenue. 3. Shri Naveen Mullick, ld. Advocate submitted that the appellants were a partnership firm in which the father and the son were the partners. There was another partnership firm under the name and style of Avon Scales Corpn. in which th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat when the sales were effected through related persons then the price at which the related concern supplied the goods in the market was to form the basis for arriving at the assessable value. He also submitted that as full details were not made available at the time of the original SCN, there was no actual quantification of the demand and the demand was quantified in the corrigendum. 5. We have carefully considered the matter. We find that the manufacturing concern was a partnership of father Shri Pritam Lal and son Shri Ashish Bhutani. The trading concern, M/s. Avon Sales Corpn. was the partnership of wife of Shri Pritam Lal and another son of Shri Pritam Lal. Both the concerns were owned by close family blood relations. 6. The appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he goods for the first time in the open market. 8. The adjudicating authority had already taken note of the fact that the allegation of the suppression was not established against the appellants. He had restricted the demand only to the normal period of limitation. 9. In the original SCN it was alleged that the appellants had suppressed the facts and the levy of penalty was proposed on this ground. We consider that once the allegation of suppression is not found established, there was no ground for imposition of penalty in the facts and circumstances of this case. We, therefore, consider that the imposition of penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was not proper. We set aside that part of the impugned order which relates to the imposition of penalty. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
