9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued to the appellants raising a demand of duty on two different grounds as detailed below :- (a) An amount of Rs. 40,009.40 was proposed to be confirmed against them under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Act on the alleged ground of clandestine removal of the goods; (b) Central Excise duty of Rs. 65,517.25 was proposed to be confirmed on the ground that the goods in question have been sold at lower price by the appellants to their related person, M/s. Makesworth Enterprises. 2.1. The above allegation of lower assessable value was made on the fact that M/s. Makesworth are the sole proprietory firm and Shri Surendra Kumar Tulsian who is the sole proprietor, is the son-in-law of Shri Biswanath Sar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... howdhury and for the Revenue, Shri T. Premkumar, learned JDR, raised a number of grounds. 4. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and have gone through the impugned order also. It is seen that during the relevant period i.e. from 9-3-1984 to 4-3-1986, the appellants cleared their goods to M/s. Makesworth as well as to other parties. A comparison of the prices appearing at Annexure-I, of show cause notice shows that the prices charged by the appellants from M/s. Makesworth were lower than the prices charged by it from the independent wholesale buyers at the same point of time. Taking one example that on 31-10-1983, Bill No. 6/82-83 was raised by the appellants in favour of M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. at the rate of Rs. 1453. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tulsian as well as Shri Mahesh Kumar Saraf, in their statements before the officers, have clearly admitted that they were indulging in undervaluation and clandestine removal, of the goods in question. It is, further, confessed by the said partner in his statement dated 22-9-1987 that the Sodium Silicate was, in fact, supplied to M/s. Asiatic Soap Company during the period, 1984-85 without maintaining any account in RG1 register. The appellants contention that the said statement should not be relied upon as Shri Saraf, the partner was a changed partner and was not conversant with the day-to-day working, is without any basis, inasmuch as the said statements were not retracted by Shri Saraf at any point of time. Similarly, the stand taken by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting M/s. Makesworth as a related person and or a favoured buyer merely because Shri S.K. Tulsian happened to be the son-in-law and/or brother-in-law of the partners of the appellant firm without considering the fact that the firm M/s. Makesworth has been functioning since long before the relation with the said S.K. Tulsian was established. 10. It was also his submission that the goods alleged to have been removed surreptitiously without payment of duty were, in fact, trading goods purchased under genuine purchase vouchers and this shows that no investigation worth the name was carried out. It was their submission that the Additional Collector had left out the relevant aspects and taken into consideration those facts and circumstances whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties granted to them during the course of almost a year and the Additional Collector was constrained to pass an ex-parte order. 16. It was also his submission that the appellant and M/s. Makesworth were found to be related persons not merely, in the sense of family relations but also in commercial sense and the goods had been sold to them at a price much lower than the price at which the goods were sold wholesale to others. 17. The statements were voluntary statements and were not recorded under duress and the appellants had not substantiated their contention. 18. The assessee did not submit reply to the show cause notice even after lapse of two years and therefore could not have any grievance on the ground of natural justice. The dif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e upon cases in which show cause notices were issued by the Collector. 23. The appellants have referred to some commercial practices employed by new entrants in the field and others but here we are concerned with determination of assessable value on the basis of the provisions of Section 4 and therefore it is the normal price at which the goods are sold in the wholesale market which is the essential consideration and not commercial practices which the appellants may have adopted for reasons of their own. 24. The appellants have not been able to show that the charges of non-recording of production and clearance of goods without observing the formalities were not correct. A mere statement that it related to trading activity was not suffic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
