9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of unaccounted sale of above goods which remained unrebutted - Added to this, circumstantial evidence show that the appellant has not dealt with goods with any other buyer. Therefore the allegation cannot be said to have been made on vaccume - demand of duty confirmed. Valuation of waste - appellant claim that merely because this figure appeared in the balance sheet, without proving clandestine removal, department cannot make allegation of such removal for levy of duty - Held that: - Appellant did not rebut generation of 83% finished goods from the input used. It was all along been disclosing that there was generation of sludge in the course of manufacture. But when physical verification was conducted, there was no sludge found in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll not ipsofacto make the appellant liable to excise duty. There was no evidence discovered by investigation that there was clandestine removal of that quantity of goods. 3. So far as the second allegation on the value of the waste is concerned, submission of appellant is that merely because this figure appeared in the balance sheet, without proving clandestine removal, department cannot make allegation of such removal for levy of duty of ₹ 3,52,809/-. 4. On the other hand Revenue s submission is that learned adjudicating authority has acted rightly under law. 5. When paras-15 16 of the adjudication order is looked into, it shows that learned adjudicating authority has made his finding not on the sole consideration of entry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not rebut generation of 83% finished goods from the input used. It was all along been disclosing that there was generation of sludge in the course of manufacture. But when physical verification was conducted, there was no sludge found in the premises of the plant. Therefore such huge value of waste which is valued by appellant shall not go unaccounted, if that has economic value. Basic common sense leads to hold that bleaching powder was sold in the guise of waste and there was clandestine removal of the same causing detriment to the interest of Revenue which resulted in demand of duty of ₹ 3,52,809/-. Accordingly, on this count also, adjudication is confirmed. 7. So far as penalty on the appellant M/s.Aries Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
