9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1056X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dingly made. But in the instant case, two sets of stamps were kept by the appellant. The plea taken by the appellant is indeed vague. The background of the matter is that the appellant has been charged for evasion of duty by violating law, that specifically relate to the payment of duty on the MRP value of the excisable goods which has been admittedly violated in the statements recorded under statutory provisions. In such background, the cartons and stamps found are critical piece of evidence for the detected evasion and that support charges against the appellant. The MRP of the product on cartons was enough and does not require presence of gas stove in the carton. Gas stove in the carton is sufficient for the customer to know the MRP. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ared to the Department under Rule 173C(2A) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 with the stamping found on empty box /cartons. On the basis of seized materials, the officers opined that appellant had misdeclared MRP on their products. So, they contacted a few dealers of the appellant company and statements were recorded by the Department which were confronted to the appellants representative. 3. On the differential values, the officers have levied duty which was confirmed by the first appellate authority vide impugned order. Being dissatisfied the appellant has filed the present appeal. 4. With this background, Shri Rajesh Kumar, ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that no evidence worthy of reliance has been adduced by the Depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appellant had been maintaining two sets of maximum retail price - one for submitting to the Department and another for affixing on their products sold mainly to the wholesalers/retailers and by doing so, they were evading payment of Central Excise duty. To this effect, enquiries were made to their wholesale buyers. He also submits that personal hearing was given to the authorized signatory of the firm, Shri Sandeep Jain in the presence of their Advocate. MRP declaration, rubber stamps, LPG Stoves, empty cartons, use of rubber stamps were discussed with them. Cross-examination of J.P. Jain was permitted by the adjudicating authority and a letter requesting the appellant to appear on 23.3.2007 was issued to him but he did not tu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
