9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order]. - The appellant is an undertaking of U.P. State Government. It is engaged in the manufacture and sale of yarn. The impugned order imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the appellant, which is equivalent to duty short paid by the appellant, on yarn manufactured and cleared by it during July, 1996 - September, 1996. 2. The facts leading to imposition of penalty are t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have carefully gone thorough the case records, appeal filed by the Appellant and records of personal hearing. The instant order under which is was held that in view of amended Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944, the element of freight and insurance should invariably form a part of assessable value in case of sales to depots and Consignment Agent. The appellants have also not disputed it and dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s it was the responsibility of the appellants to know the law of land and to comply with, and by not doing so, the Appellants rendered themselves liable for penal action. Accordingly, I pass the following order :- ORDER In the circumstances, I uphold the impugned Order-in-Original No. MP-DEM/80/2001/53 of 2001 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority being proper and legal and reject the Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich reads as under:- "In the light of the decision of the Karnataka High Court as referred above which considered the very same issue placed before us, it may not be possible for us to take different view as contended by the ld. Departmental representative. It is noted that the Karnataka High Court has referred to the fact the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant's explanation was that it had filed sale invoices and those invoices revealed the facts fully. Instead of considering the merits of this contention, the Commissioner brushed aside the explanation by noting that there was no requirement in law to file invoices. He proceeded to uphold the charge of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. Clearly, the finding is beside the point. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
