9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 904X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the said order with an option to the appellants to redeem the same on payment of Rs. 50,000/-. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Corrugated Cardboard Boxes both printed and unprinted. The printed boxes fall under sub-heading 4819.12 and unprinted boxed are covered under sub-heading 4819.19 of the C.E.T.A., 1985. The appellants were availing exemption on the said goods manufactured out of inputs falling under sub-heading Nos. 4804, 4805.11, 4805.14, 4807.91, 4807.92, 4811.10 under Notification No. 59/88-C.E. dated 1-3-1988. A search was conducted in the premises of the appellants on 2-4-1993. The documents recovered revealed that the appellants had adopted a novel modus operand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise authorities to effect recovery of such amount collected as they can recover only the amount what is leviable and payment under the law. As regards the allegation of clandestine removals, the appellants stated that as the goods manufactured and removed by them did not attract Central Excise duty, the question of reflecting the same in the statutory records would not arise. They submitted that they were made to pay Rs. 60,000/- as duty on the subject goods and they reserve their right to claim refund of the said amount. During personal hearing, the appellants submitted that the assessable value which was determined in Annexure-A to the Show-cause Notice was incorrect as it was purportedly determined by adding the duty demand and there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cases, the duty was collected but not debited in PLA or RG 23A Part II. He submits that in those cases the excise duty was collected separately by issuing Gate Passes and, therefore, cannot form part of the assessable value. In this connection, the learned Advocate relies upon the decision of Tribunal in Utkal Containers and Closures (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Bhubaneswar - 2000 (117) E.L.T. 95(Tribunal) = 1999 (35) RLT 52 (CEGAT). The learned Advocate further contends that in the order impugned the Commissioner has not considered or discussed the point urged that Sl. Nos. 2, 11 and 28 of the Annexure A of the Show-cause Notice to be deducted from the total duty liability since cleared on payment of duty although set out in the order. In this co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dboard cases and boxes. Their contention that the manufacturer of the inputs have wrongly classified the same cannot be accepted in the face of the evidence which was referred to by the Commissioner in his order. In view of this, I am of the opinion that clandestine removal of goods has been established beyond doubt. 5.1 As regards the appellants contention with regard to recalculation of the value for the purpose of arriving at the correct duty of demand, there is a force in this argument as recorded in para 3 supra. I observe that the appellants are also right in their contention that the Commissioner has not considered or discussed about Sl. Nos. 2, 11 and 28 of Annexure A of the Show-cause Notice with reference to which they claime ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
