9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Texpro Ltd., M/s R.B. Textile Mills and the appellants, alleging mis-declaration of the value of grey fabrics supplied by M/s R.B. Textile Mills for processing to Shree Mahaganesh Texpro Ltd. The demand of duty and penalty was confirmed along with interest and equivalent penalty. Penalties of Rs. 1 lakh was imposed on Shri Prakash Balar and Shri Ratanlal Babulal Agarwal, the appellants. 2. Learned Counsel for Shri Ratanlal Babulal Agarwal argued that M/s R.B. Textile Mills is a merchant manufacturer working under Notification No. 27/1992-CE (NT) dated 9.10.1992 and during the relevant period was sending grey fabrics to various processors including Shree Mahaganesh Texpro Ltd. for processing grey fabrics and receiving the same on pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n any credence to such retraction. It was further argued that penalties under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 has been sought to be imposed without any allegation of goods being liable to confiscation. 3. The learned Counsel for Shri Prakash Balar, Director of M/s Shree Mahaganesh Texpro Ltd. argued that the allegation that the value of grey fabrics declared namely, M/s R.B. Textiles is low, is not supported by any tangible or worthwhile evidence. The only evidence which has been relied upon by the lower authorities is statement of Shri Ratanlal Babulal Agarwal, proprietor of M/s R.B. Textiles, which has been contradicted and retracted in the cross examination conducted on 21.3.2006. He further argued that to impose penalty und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise Rules, 1944 is appropriate. He further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Sanjay Vimalbhai Deora 2014 (306) ELT 533 (Guj.) to assert that penalty under Section 209A can be imposed even if goods are not confiscated and have not been rendered liable to confiscation. 5. We have gone through the rival submissions. The case of the Revenue is based on the fact that the Revenue found that Noticee No. 3 supplied grey fabrics to Noticee No. 1 during the period 4.5.1997 to 13.12.1998 at a declared maximum value of Rs. 11.89 per L. meter, while the maximum purchase price of grey fabrics during the said period was Rs. 16 per L. meter. It is seen that no evidence of the said allegation has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
