9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ken at this stage since it involves the detail inspection of the records and documents. Further the modvat aspect for the purpose of quantification has also to be looked into. We thus find it appropriate to remand the case back to the adjudication authority for limited purpose of quantification. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/1181 to 1183/06 & E/3379 to 3385/06 - A/91041-91049/17 - Dated:- 30-11-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Shri Mihir Mehta, Advocate for Appellant Shri A.B. Kulgod, Asstt. Commr. (A.R) for respondent ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair These cross appeals have been filed by M/s Vidyut Metallics Pvt. Ltd., (VML), Shri Harishankar Acharya (Production M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . They did not accounted the actual production of CRSS Strips of 0.1mm to remove the same without payment of duty and cleared the same. They failed to determine the correct assessable value of the said CRSS Strips (un-punched un-hardened) on the basis of cost data. It was alleged that M/s VML - II has not accounted the actual production and actual removal of goods with a view to evade payment of duty. It was therefore proposed to demand duty of ₹ 19,95,483/- on alleged excess unaccounted production of CRSS Strips as above for the period Mar 96 to Mar 97 ; demand of duty of ₹ 17,03,031/- on alleged excess clearance by way of issue of two sets of invoices bearing same serial numbers for the period Dec 94 to Dec 96; demand of d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvaluation of goods. A penalty of equivalent amount was also imposed upon the VML and penalties of ₹ 1 lakhs and ₹ 25,000/- was imposed upon Shri Harishankar Acharya and Shri V.B. Poojari respectively. Hence the present appeals by M/s VML and individuals. The Revenue aggrieved with the dropping of demands and reduction of penalties of individuals has also filed appeals before the Tribunal. 3. Shri Mihir Mehta, Ld. Counsel appearing for M/s VML and individuals submits that it is not in dispute that VML - II has transferred the entire finished goods to VML - I or its associate concerns viz Micro Raj Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and R.C.C. (Sales) Pvt. Ltd both located in Hyderabad on payment of duty who avail modvat credit of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mand has not taken into consideration the 19 number of invoices and in absence of any ground for non consideration of the clearances made on said invoices the non confirmation of demand on such invoices is not legal. That the adjudicating authority allowed modvat credit on inputs for the year 1994 - 95, 1995 - 96 and 1996 - 97 and arrived at assessable value for the respective years and finding the same to be less than the assessable value taken by the assessee for payment of duty has dropped the demand. However the assessable value taken for payment of duty by the assessee for the month of march 95, June 96, July 96 and Oct 96 are less than the value arrived at after allowing the modvat benefit by the adjudicating authority and therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s VML is without grounds. For moment, it is assumed that the above consideration is correct then the basis is that why no production reports/ slips were prepared and retained showing the quantity obtained during the date or in a shift from slitting and coil joining machines or after the process of punching and hardening. It is also observed that the officers during the course of search in the factory premises of M/s VML on 03.03.1997 could not lay their hands on such production reports which indicated the quantity obtained during a particular period for slitting and coil joining machine or after the process of punching and hardening laying a shadow of doubt on the defence claim. Though it is indeed surprising why production reports o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ked out. The matter is required to be remitted for that. d) Since the total demand is to be reworked, in view of finding as per (E) hereinabove. The penalty will have to be set aside and re-determined, the question of valuation is kept open in the remand proceedings. We find that the Tribunal had upheld the charges of removal of goods but remanded only on limited aspect of reworking of demand and the above findings of the Tribunal was not challenged before higher forum by the assessee. Thus the demand on merits cannot be challenged now as the Tribunal s findings has become final and only reworking of demand can be looked into. As regard plea of reworking of demand the revenue s contention is that since the assessee has not produced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
