9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on made. I find that the impugned order is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. - Appeal No.E/1317/11 - - - Dated:- 31-1-2013 - Hon'ble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant: Shri J.C. Patel, Adv For the Respondent: Shri M. Kutty, A.R. Per : Mr. M.V. Ravindran; This appeal is directed against the order in appeal No.244/2011(Ahd-II)CE/PKJ/Commr(A)/Ahd, dt.10.08.11. 2. During the course of verification of Central Excise records viz. job challans, job work register, Daily stock account etc. by the Central Excise audit, it was found that the appellant got manufactured their product namely RNA TARTARATE on job work basis and export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the appellant along with interest and proposal was made for imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. The said show cause notice was adjudicated by the adjudicating authority and wherein the demand was confirmed along with interest and also equivalent amount of penalty was also imposed. The assessee took up the matter before the first appellate authority who vide his order dated 25.08.09 dismissed the appeal and upheld the order in original. The appellant herein challenged the order in appeal before the Tribunal and CESTAT vide final order No.A/516/WZB/AHD/2010 dated 21.05.10 remanded the matter back to the original adjudicating authority for denovo proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt has dismissed the appeal which is reported at 2008 (221) ELT A 25 (Guj.). He would also rely upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of PCL Oil Solvents Ltd. 2009 (246) ELT 528 (Tri. Ahmd.) for the proposition that charges of clandestine activities cannot be upheld on the basis of input output ratio and assumptions and presumptions. 5. Ld. D.R. would reiterate the findings of the lower authorities. 6. I have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 7. The issue involved in this case is regarding the discharge of differential duty of Rs.1,06,651/- which has been worked out by the lower authority based upon the difference between the theoretical yield and the actual yield as recorded by the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transported, the allegations of clandestine removal cannot be upheld. To the same effect is the Tribunals decision in the case of M/s. Parle Beverages Ltd. [1999 (114) E.L.T. 872 (Tri.)], it was observed that there is no contractual obligation on the part of the assessee to strictly adhere to the formula. The object of the formula is to ensure consistency of the product in different batches and in each bottle of the same batch. It is therefore, more of a working guide than an inflexible requirement in terms of quantity of end-product and it is not permissible to demand duty only on the basis of consumption of a single raw material. In the case of M/s. Nav Karnataka Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore [2008 (225) E.L.T. 454 (Tri. Bang.)], i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
