9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (10) TMI 672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n goods without discharging duties due thereon. The show cause notice asked the appellants as to why - (6.1) Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 5,77,456.00 shall not be demanded from and paid by them under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (6.2) a penalty shall not be imposed upon them under Sec. 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the aforesaid contravention; (6.3) interest at the appropriate rate shall not be charged on and paid by them under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (6.4) the amount of Rs. 11,54,912.00 already deposited by them, as mentioned hereinbefore, shall not be appropriated against the aforesaid demand/penalty under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (6.5) finished goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lue calculated as Rs. 72,18,200.00 (Rupees seventy-two lakh one hundred and eighty-two) (sic) by the Department and accepted by them, is cum-duty price, and computation of assessable value has not been correctly made and they relied upon a formula in the case of Madras Rubber Factory [1989 (27) E.L.T. 553 (S.C.) = 1987 (10) ECR 625 (S.C.) and 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.)] to determine the assessable value which would, as per the Supreme Court s formula, work out to Rs. 66,83,518.00 (Rupees sixty-six lakhs eighty-three thousand five hundred and eighteen) and therefore, involvement of duty would thus be reduced to Rs. 5,34,648.44 (Rupees five lakhs thirty-four thousand six hundred and forty-eight and paise forty-four); (c) that the invo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of computation of duty. In this case, we find that the same have been paid within the stipulated period and therefore, the penalty under Section 11AC cannot be in excess of 25% of duty. The same is required to be confirmed only @ 25% of the duty to be worked out as per MRF formula. 4. We also do not find any substance in the plea of the appellants that the deposit of Rs. 77,000.00 (Rupees seventy-seven thousand) at the time of release of the seized goods found in excess over the RG-I balance, was only for the duty-liability on the appellants. The goods are definitely not accounted for and there is corroborative evidence arrived at and confirmed that clandestine removals were being effected. Therefore, the confiscation and the security ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
