9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted two trucks carrying HDPE pipes of various sizes and it was found that the goods were cleared by the appellant and without cover of any invoice showing payment of duty. The revenue officers visited the factory of the appellant and on verification, it was found that certain quantity of final product i.e. HDPE pipes of various sizes were found in excess to the recorded balance in the statutory record and certain quantity of pipes were also found short. The inputs i.e. HDPE granules were also found short by the recorded balance in the statutory record. During the verification it was also found that the appellant cleared 53,000 metres of HDPE pipes at lower price to evade payment of duty. 2. The contention of the appellant is that the truc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er authority. 3. The contention of the revenue is that the goods were found outside the factory loaded into two trucks and the appellant failed to produce any duty paid document covering the goods found in the trucks. The contention is that on verification, inputs were found short whereas the final product i.e. HDPE pipes of various sizes were also in excess and certain pipes of various sizes were found short than a recorded balance. In respect of the under valuation, the contention is that the appellant had never informed to the Revenue that they were clearing the goods at lower price, therefore, the impugned order was rightly passed. 4. In this case, the goods i.e. HDPE pipes were found loaded in trucks without any cover of duty payin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We find that the appellant produced evidence by way of communication received from the customers i.e. Nuline Polymers (P) Ltd. where they refused to accept the goods manufactured by them and offered the lower prices. This evidence was not taken into consideration by the lower authority nor any inquiry was made from M/s. Nuline Polymers (P) Ltd. From the very beginning the contention of the appellant is that the goods were not up to the specifications of their customers, hence were cleared on the negotiated prices. In these circumstances, we find that demand on account of suppression of value of the goods is not sustainable and set aside. Penalty on this account is also set aside. Appeal is disposed of as indicated above. (Order dictated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
