9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion (I) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the applicant ) and S/Shri Manoj Arya, Surendra Arya, Gopal Prasad Ambastha, Harishchandra Tiwari, Rajesh Manikchand Dunkwal, Dinesh Kumar Singh, Sanjay Mittal, Alpesh N. Gosalia, Ramprasad Shobnath Singh, Ghanshyam Pandey, Girish Chimanlal Sangani, M/s. A. Navindchandra Steel Ltd., and Shri G. Chimanlal Co (hereinafter referred to as the co-applicants ) was held on 13-12-2004 when Shri V. Sridharan, Advocate argued the case on behalf of the applicant. S/Shri Gajendra Jain, Sujay Kantawala, Advocates, S/Shri Manoj Arya, Surendra Arya, Gopal Prasad Ambastha, Harishchandra Tiwari, Sanjay Mittal, Alpesh N. Gosalia , Ramprasad Shobnath Singh, Ghanshyam Pandey, Girish Chimanlal Sangani also rema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Central Excise Act, 1944 before the Settlement Commission, Addl. Bench, Mumbai on 8-7-2004, inter alia admitting and accepting entire duty liability of Rs. 11,06,430/- demanded in the original show cause notice dated 1-6-2004. 6. The ld. Advocate submitted at the time of admission hearing that the applicant has accepted as payable the entire duty demanded in the show cause notice issued originally. The ld. Advocate submitted that the applicant is not any part of the duty jacked up by the corrigendum as it is based on conjecture only and facts based on which corrigendum is issued, were available to Revenue even when they issued the original show cause notice. 7. The Revenue was represented by Shri T.C. Mauriya, Assistant Commissioner ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the fact of suppression of production by the applicant through any other evidence like actual removals, consumption of basic raw materials i.e. steel scrap, or steel ingots, any evidence relating to the transportation of clandestinely removed goods, etc. In that view of the matter, a full debate on consumption of furnace oil, the basis of issuing the corrigendum shall be held at the time of final hearing. Since the applicant fulfils all the conditions laid down under Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944, all the applications are allowed to be proceeded with under Section 32F(1) of the said Act. The amount of Rs. 11,06,430/- already paid by the applicant is allowed to be adjusted against the duty liability accepted by the applican ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
