9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacture of M.S. Wires. M/s Bajaj Steel Co., Amravati, is engaged in the trading of iron, hardware and general supplies and is a proprietary concern owned by Shri G.K. Bajaj. M/s. Bajaj Steel Co., Amravati procures M.S. Wires, M.S. Wire rods for trading purpose from the applicant. Search of the premises and the godowns owned by Shri G.K. Bajaj was carried out by the Officers of C.I.U and Preventive Branch, C.Ex., Headquarters, Nagpur and records relating to the said firms were seized. 3. From the certificate issued by the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra dated 28-9-1999, it is revealed that both manufacturing and trading concerns are operating under common Bombay Sales Act, 1959/Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 numbers 44460 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s per the provisions of Section 4 (sub-section 4) with effect from 1-7-2000, related person means a person who is so associated with the assessee that they have interest, directly or indirectly, in the business of each other and includes a relative of the assessee. As such, the applicant should have paid Central excise duty on the value at which M/s. Bajaj Steel Co. sold the goods. 7. A demand notice C. No. V (72) 15-223/2001/Adj./12777, dated 3-7-2001 has been issued to the applicant by Superintendent, CIU, Central Excise, Hqrs., Nagpur for recovery of differential Central Excise duty of Rs. 2,05,914/- on the differential value of Rs. 10,32,613/- for the period 1996-97 to October, 2000. 8. The demand also proposes confiscation of goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om interest, fine, penalty, etc. The Revenue was not present. 15. The Commission has gone through the records of the case and the submission of the applicant. 16. The Commission vide its Interim Order No. 26/SC/CE/2002, dated 10th April, 2002 allowed the application to be proceeded with under sub-section (1) of Section 32F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commission observed that the Show Cause Notice No. V (72) 15-223/2001/ Adj./12777, dated 4-7-2001 demanded a differential duty amounting to Rs. 2,05,914/- in respect of under-valuation committed by the applicant. The applicant without contesting the duty liability admitted the entire amount of duty covered by the said show cause notice. The applicant had been directed to pay the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fine and penalty on the applicant under Central Excise Act, 1944. (c) Interest As discussed supra the applicant has agreed and admitted the entire duty liability as demanded in the show cause notice without any contest. The applicant has also co-operated with the Settlement Commission in the proceeding before it. Keeping this in mind, the Commission grants immunity from interest under the Central Excise Act, 1944. (d) Prosecution The applicant is given immunity from prosecution under Central Excise Act, 1944 and under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) relating to the matter covered in this application. This settlement order shall be void if the Settlement Commission subsequently finds that it has been obtained by fraud or mis-rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
