9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I 164 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD). Confirmation of the duty liability as indicated hereinabove needs to be upheld; as appellant-assessees are not contesting the demand on the clandestine removal as has been confirmed by the adjudicating authority. As we are upholding the confirmation of the demand on the clandestine removal of the goods, we uphold the interest liability and equivalent penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act 1944. We also state that wherever the adjudicating authority has not extended the benefit of discharge of penalty @ 25% of the confirmed duty liability, the same is extended to those assessees - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - E/448-E/449/2012, E/10150/2013, E/10155/2013, E/10352-E/10353/2013, E/10684-E/106 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... econdly, there is no stay granted by the Apex Court; Thirdly, Revenue in its own application dt.23.09.2014 has stated that these are all frivolous litigations. 5. The issue involved in all these appeals is regarding the valuation of ceramic tiles manufactured and cleared by the appellants herein. It is the case of the Revenue that the appellants herein has under-valued the tiles in order to evade duty and there is an allegation of clandestine removal. The entire issue can be bifurcated into two parts i.e. the period prior to 1.3.2008 and period post 1.3.2008. It is the case of the Revenue that the appellant-assessees had incorrectly declared the MRP on the packages which were cleared by them and the said MRP needs to be re-determined as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eration of the said order of the Tribunal as also in the case of L T and Siemens Ltd. It is the submission that on merit, the case of the Revenue as made out in the case of M/s Snider Electricals (supra) is stand alone, and is not binding precedent, in as much the facts in that case were very clear that the manufacturers therein, either did not declare the RSP on the packages as statutorily required or the declared RSP was tampered or altered or obliterated. It is the submission that in the cases in hand, no such allegation is made in the show cause notice nor is there any finding to that effect. Hence, the ratio laid down in the case of Sninder Electricals (India) Ltd will not be applicable in the cases in hand. 8. Ld.D.R., on the other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are that the manufactures therein either did not declare the RSP on the package as was statutorily required and the RSP was either tampered or altered or obliterated. In a situation like there being tampering, the view taken by the bench in the case of Snider Electricals (India) Ltd (supra), may not be applicable in the cases in hand wherein such an allegation is absent nor there are any finding to that effect. Be that as it may, the majority decision of the Tribunal is stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. Hence, the said decision of the Tribunal cannot be considered as a precedent judgment. 12. In view of the foregoing, we hold that the ratio laid down in the case of Acme Ceramics Others (supra) will be applicable in all t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. M/s Sober Ceramics E/13198/2013 43,259 6. M/s Priya Gold Ceramicws E/13687/2013 92,724 7. M/s Apple Tiles Pvt.Ltd. E/11457/2014 12,494 8. M/s Fresco Ceramic Pvt.Ltd. E/11448/2014 11,633 9. M/s Opwell Ceramic Pvt.Ltd. E/11710/2014 34,648 14. We hold that the said confirmation of the duty liability as indicated hereinabove needs to be upheld; as appellant-assessees are not contesting t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
