9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dication) Central Excise, Mumbai on different dates. The issue raised is whether the Commissioner was justified in holding that the Revenue has failed to prove undervaluation at the instance of the assessees as alleged in the show cause notices. 2. The respondents-assessees are engaged in the manufacture of PTY Twisted Yarn falling under chapter sub-heading 54.02 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On the basis of intelligence received by the officers of Anti Evasion Directorate that the assessees are indulging in evasion of central excise duty by resorting to undervaluation and clandestine clearances of PTY; that the assessees were clearing PTY from their factory gate at a very low value in the name of fictitious/non-existing firms, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than what is reflected in the invoices there are no evidence which could be relied on by the Revenue to show that the goods were sold at much higher price than what was declared in the invoices. It was further held that there was no justification in quantifying the assessable value on the basis of bank statement. The above finding is under challenge before us. 3. It was contended by the learned Departmental Representative that the Commissioner has erred in the finding that the Revenue has failed to prove undervaluation. It is submitted that there is no dispute on the fact that the names of the buyers shown in the invoices issued at the time of removal of the goods from the factory are fictitious. Actual sales are to other buyers through ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale price at depot was on a higher side even then there is no justification for taking recourse to Valuation Rules as was proposed in the show cause notice. The Commissioner has correctly held that only in those cases where it can be demonstrated that the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) are inapplicable, recourse to Valuation Rules can be taken as provided under Section 4(1)(b). Learned Commissioner has correctly pointed out that if, according to the Revenue there is a sale at the depot, sale price at depot could have been ascertained. Therefore, there is no justification to resort to valuation under Section 4(1)(b) and the Valuation Rules. The Commissioner points out that even though the Department had knowledge about the ultimate actual b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In Punjab Oil Silicate Mills - 1993 (65) E.L.T. 268, the Department while alleging clandestine manufacture and removal of the goods relied on the figures furnished by the assessee to the Department of Industries or as admitted by the party in their affidavits filed before the Department for getting the coal. The Tribunal took the view that any information obtained from the Department of Industries is not sufficient proof to show that the goods were manufactured unless it was substantiated with other evidence of clandestine removal of the manufactured goods. It was also held that even admission, confession or sworn statement given by the appellants before other authority in different context for different purpose cannot be taken as conclus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
