9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Member (Judicial) and Mr. Ashok Arya, Member (Technical) Shri Krishna Kant, Advocate for the appellant Shri, G.R.Singh, AR for the respondent ORDER The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order demanding duty from the main appellant alongwith interest and imposing penalty on all the appellants. 2. The facts of the case are that on intelligence, the main appellant is indulging huge evasion of excise duty by way of suppression of production and clearance of the goods through various means. Shri Mahendra Kumar Kabra one of the director of the main appellant appeared before the Superintendent (Preventive) on 8.12.2008 and tendered his statement that he is dummy director and ShriK.N.Tirpatahi looks after the who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... voices by showing old rejects and pitted steel but the goods of good quality by undervaluing the goods the appellant has evaded the payment of duty. In these sets of facts, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants to demand duty alongwith interest and to impose penalties on all the appellants. The matter was adjudicated, the demand of duty was confirmed alongwith interest and penalties on all the appellants were imposed. Aggrieved with the said order, the appellants are before us. 3. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 4. In this case, the demand has been raised on the basis of the stock verification and various statements recorded during the course of investigation and thereafter on various grounds. All the grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and cannot be confirmed against the appellants without affording the cross examination to the appellant and to give personal hearing with positive evidence. In that circumstance, the said demand is not sustainable without giving fair opportunity to the appellant to present their case. Therefore, the matter needs re-examination by the adjudicating authority on this issue. (b) A demand of ₹ 83,57,897/- has been confirmed on account of shortage of M.s.Bars weighing 1932.05 MT found short as against RG-1 register showing 2928.725 MT of M.S.Bars as against actual stock only 9936 MT. 4. The contention of the appellant is that with regard to this allegation is that the proceedings were started at 3 pm and closed at 11 pm. During such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition and the goods remained lying in open stock yard get rusted and become inferior due to closure of the factory, therefore, the goods were of deteriorated quality which were cleared at lower price. 8. We find that to ascertain the fact whether the buyers have purchased the goods of inferior quality/deteriorated quality, the cross examination of the buyers is required to prove the allegation of undervaluation which was not granted by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, this also needs examination at the end of the adjudicating authority. (e) A demand of ₹ 5,92,419/- has sought to be confirmed on the basis of parallel invoices. 9. We find that the said demand has not been contested by the appellant and the same has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
