9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot done the same and, therefore, failed to substantiate the evidence relied upon in the show-cause notice - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/2409 & 2486/06 - A/85611-85612/17/EB - Dated:- 30-1-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Shri D.A. Bhalerao, Advocate Ms. Lalita Phadke, Advocate for Appellant Shri S.V. Nair, AC (AR) Shri Sanjay Hasija, Supdt. (AR) for Respondent ORDER Per Raju These appeals have been filed by Shri Ratanlal Babulal Agarwal, Proprietor of M/s R.B. Textile Mills and Shri Prakash Balar, Director of M/s Shree Mahaganesh Texpro Ltd. A case was booked against M/s Shree Mahaganesh Texpro Ltd., M/s R.B. Textile Mills and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sought the documents on the basis of which the declared price was rejected by Revenue. It was argued that while on one hand Revenue alleges that fictitious bills were submitted on which the full specification of the fabrics were not given, the Revenue had not produced any evidence of purchase by the merchant manufacturer at a price different from that declared by them. It was argued that the order is passed on assumption and no substantive evidence has been produced by the Revenue to reject the declared value. It was also argued that the demand is based on retracted statements. It was argued that while the original adjudicating authority has recorded the retraction by the appellant but has not given any credence to such retraction. It was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the period 4.5.1997 to 13.12.1998, the maximum purchase value of grey fabrics was ₹ 16/- per L. meter as against ₹ 11.89 per L. meter as declared in the fictitious bills submitted along with price-declaration. In view of mis-declaration, the Revenue has rightly adopted maximum value of ₹ 16/ per L. meter as correct price of grey fabrics for the purpose of calculating the differential duty. It was argued that the procedure prescribed under Notification No. 27/1992 was not followed. He also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of K.S. Simon 2010 (259) ELT 127 (Tri-Bang) to assert that in case of under-valuation penalty under section 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 is appropriate. He fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ply adopted the highest price at which the grey fabrics were supplied to M/s R.B. Textile Mills and applied the same across the board. In the synopsis given by the appellant, it has been asserted that they were sending grey fabrics to processors including M/s Shree Mahaganesh Texpro Ltd. Thus it appears that the merchant manufacturer was sending goods to various processors and Shree Mahaganesh Texpro was one of them. In these circumstances, in absence of any invoice-wise correlation between the purchase price of the grey fabrics and the value adopted for the purpose of Central Excise cannot be accepted. The statement given by the merchant manufacturer was changed during the cross examination. The Revenue could have countered that retract ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
