9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 743X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the applicant, the officers of Ahmedabad-II Commissionerate, searched the factory premises of the applicant on 22-12-2000. On verification of stock of finished goods, it was found that glazed tiles of certain quality were in excess i.e. unaccounted for in statutory record where as tiles of certain quality were in short compared to balance in RG-!. Excess stock of 2,414 boxes tiles, valued at Rs. 1,71,520/- was seized and handed over to the applicant for safe custody. Duty of Rs. 8,256/- was involved in shortages found. Certain incriminating record was seized by the officers for further investigation. The investigation revealed that the applicant had removed tiles worth Rs. 16,11,232/-, clandestinely i.e. without accounting in statutory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on amount of Rs. 1,51,655/- from 26-1-2002 to 14-6-2002 within a week s time from receipt of the order. The applicant vide letter dated 15-7-2002 intimated particulars of payment of Rs. 10,500/- as the interest. 4. In sealed cover the applicant had explained the method of working out the duty accepted as payable. The applicant did not dispute the clandestine removal of tiles and realisation of sale proceeds of Rs. 16,11,232/- discussed in the notice. The applicant s contention was that the assessable value of tiles was required to be ascertained under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Notification No. 20/99 C.E. (N.T.) dt. 28-2-1999, based on MRP, allowing 50% abatement from the retail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowed the applications to be proceeded with. The applicant admitted a duty liability of Rs. 2,01,655/-. Out of the admitted duty liability an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was paid vide PLA entry No. 93/95 dated 31-3-2001, which was allowed to be adjusted. The remaining amount of duty of Rs. 1,51,655/- was directed to be paid by the applicant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the admission order. 9. The applicant filed a miscellaneous application dated 30-3-2002 before the Commission stating that the applicant had failed to comply with the order of the Commission and submitted that the applicant had paid the remaining amount of admitted duty liability of Rs. 1,51,655/- on 14-6-2002 and to this effect the ld. Advocate on behalf of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the provisions of Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 is applicable for specified goods on which duty liability is fixed on the basis of maximum retail price on which such goods are sold to ultimate consumer. This MRP value for the purpose of above section is deemed to be the retail sale price declared on such goods less such amount of abatement, if any, from such retails sale price as allowed by the Government. The submission of the Commissioner was that in the present case, the goods were removed without payment of duty and without issuing Central Excise Invoice or following Central Excise procedures. The applicant might not have suffered any of the elements which constitutes the MRP. The view is that the grant of abatement will g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the firms of M/s. Sun Ceramics and M/s. Sun Traders. Then that the total amount of duty payable would be Rs. 2,01,655/- (Rs. 8,256 as duty on shortages + Rs. 1,93,399/- as duty on clandestine removal). 13. What is observed by the Commission here is that the applicant is not contesting the duty demanded on shortages but only has questioned the assessable value taken for calculating duty for clandestine removal of the goods. 14. As discussed elsewhere, on the final hearing fixed on 26-11-2002 neither the applicant nor Revenue appeared/represented. The applicant had sought adjournment. There was no intimation from the Revenue. The Commission on a perusal of Notification No. 20/99-C.E. (N.T.), dated 28-2-99 has observed that this Notificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d also. When once the Commission holds this view, the Commission also has to accept the additional duty liability declared by the applicant. 17. In the above view of the matter, the terms of settlement are as follows : (1) Duty : The case is settled for an amount duty of Rs. 2,01,655/-. Since the applicant has paid the amount no further amount is payable towards duty. (2) Interest : As per the Interim Order No. 50/C.Ex./2002 dated 25-6-2002, the Commission directed the applicant to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rs. 1,51,655/- from 26-1-2002 to 14-6-2002 within a week from receipt of copy of the order under intimation to Revenue and this Commission. The applicant vide his letter dated 15-7-2002 intimated that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
