9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member Technical Shri Rabeen Jayaram, Advocate, for the appellant Shri S. Nagalingm, AC (AR) for the respondent ORDER Per: Sulekha Beevi C.S. The above appeals being connected and arising out of the same impugned order are taken together for disposal. The appellants and respondents are referred to as assessee and Department for the sake of convenience. 2. The assessees are engaged in the manufacture of polyester/cotton blended yarn and were clearing the said yarn from their factory to their consignment agents situated throughout India. The dispute pertains to the period July 1997 to March 1998. It is the case of the Department that during the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on perusal of the documents at the end of the Department, it can be seen that the assessee would be liable to pay less duty than that is raised in the SCN. He also submitted that the assesse had requested for the unit to be considered as BIFR and therefore at present no documents are available with the assessee. But, if the documents in the hands of the Revenue are examined, the contention put forward by the assessee that they are liable to pay less amount can be proved. By an Interim Order, the earlier Bench had directed the assessee to inspect the documents at the office of the Revenue and thereby the assessee has received some documents which shows certain discrepancies though not entirely. That if the assessee is granted an opportunity, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals) has erred in reducing the penalty since under Section 11 AC equal penalty has to be imposed. The appellants by adopting a lesser value is guilty of suppression of facts and therefore the SCN issued invoking extended period of limitation is right and proper. 5. We have heard the submissions made by both sides. 6. The main argument put forward on behalf of the assessee is that they had not been supplied the documents relied upon by the department to raise demand in the SCN. The ld. Counsel on behalf of the assessee has strongly contended that if the documents in the custody of the department are verified, the duty demand would be reduced considerably. The averment of the assessee that they paid the duty demand of ₹ 18,81,5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
