9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pots and those effected further from the depot. The quantum of goods sold was arrived at based on the invoices of the appellants. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Excise Appeal Nos. 1535 1536 of 2011 - Final Order Nos. 56181 56182/2016 - Dated:- 30-12-2016 - Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Sh. Krishna Kant, Advocate for the Assessee Sh. G. R. Singh, AR for the Revenue ORDER Per B. Ravichandran Both these appeals are against the common impugned order dated 25.02.2011 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur. The main appellant is engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Bar liable to Central Excise duty. They were selling their final product directly to the cus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant and the same is only ₹ 63,67,096/-. They have already paid an amount of ₹ 56,50,000/- He further submitted that imposing penalty on the main appellant as well as the Director of the main appellant is not justifiable. The appellants did not contravene any provisions of law. The mistake of payment of lower duty has happened only because of negligence on the part of the employees. 3. Ld. AR for the Revenue strongly contested the submissions of the appellant. It is submitted that the appellants were well aware of the fact that when there is clearance to depot the valuation has to be in terms of Rule 7 of Valuation Rules. Knowingly they have adopted lower value even though there is no sale of such goods at the time of clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and circumstances of the case as brought out in the impugned order do not warrant any interference by us. The action of the appellant in knowingly not discharging the proper Central Excise duty is manifestly brought out during the investigation, as such we are not inclined to interfere in the penalties imposed on the appellants. Regarding the quantification of short payment, we note while the appellant is contesting the calculation they have not established with supporting evidence as to how their own calculation of short levy is correct based on such records. We have taken note of the findings of the original authority and the calculation mentioned in the show cause notice. The short payment of duty has been calculated based on the deta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
