9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1012X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opportunity has been given done by the Revenue, to give proper valuation. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/835 to 837/2007-EX[DB] - A/91653-91655/2017 - Dated:- 29-12-2017 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) None for appellant Shri.S.V. Nair, Asst. Comm.(AR) for respondent Per: Raju 1. These appeals have been filed by M/s.Basic Arch Products Pvt. Ltd., Shri Hament Surendra Parmar, Managing Director of Basic Arch Products Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Vallabh Surendra Parmar, Director of Basic Arch Products Pvt. Ltd., against demand of duty of Central Excise along with interest and imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. Appeal has also filed against the confiscation of the goods and imposition of redemption fine. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant pointed out that they are engaged in the manufacture of Steel Doors and Windows falling under Chapter sub-heading No.7308.30, 7308.90 7204.90 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 and were availing the benefit of Notification No.8/2000 for the year 2000-2001. A truck was intercepted on 17/03/2001 and the driver of the truck failed to produce the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by the appellant is that the revenue took a lot of time in supplying relied upon documents and therefore, the benefit of first proviso to Section 11AC, which restricts the penalty equal to 25% of the duty so determined could not be availed. It was further argued that the date of issue of show-cause notice should be treated as the date on which the relied upon documents were handed over. It was further argued that the impugned order is vitiated in as much as it is based on the assumed valuation when correct valuation in terms of Section 4 is possible and on account of denial of cross examination. 4. Ld. AR relied on the impugned order. 5. We have gone through the rival submissions. We find that grounds of appeals do not seriously challenged the fact. The only challenge to the impugned order is by trying to shift the responsibility on two employees, who have later left the organisation. They have not denied that irregularities did not take place. However, their appeals cites the following as a reason for remand: This lapse of department deprived opportunity of the applicant (a) to investigate the nature of the irregularities committed by these gentlemen without knowled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 20/12/2000 5.3 From the remarks it is apparent that the appellants have not been co-operating and therefore, certain assumptions were made on the basis of invoices. We find that the appellants are raising this issue of valuation before the Tribunal when the clear intention of defeating the proceedings. It is seen that the valuation has been done on the basis of invoices available with Revenue as the appellant had refused to co-operate during the investigation. Even in terms of Rule 4 of the Central Excise Rules, the value of similar goods can be adopted as value for the purpose of assessment, in the absence of actual transaction value. Thus Revenue cannot be faulted. 5.4 From the above, we find that the appellants are trying to defeat the proceedings by seeking cross examination of the people who were their employees and have now left. They are not traceable by the appellants too. They cannot escape by challenging the valuation of goods where they failed to co-operate and where reasonable opportunity has been given done by the Revenue, to give proper valuation. 6. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the appellant and the same is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufactured in their factory by raising challan and bills in the name of M/s. Vallabh Multiple Doors as if they are the manufacturer. He was aware that all such clearances of excisable goods are to be computed for the purpose of determination of aggregate value of clearance but he allowed the clearances without cover of invoices and without payment of duty with the sole intention of evading payment of duty. He was aware that the excisable goods cleared without accounting the productions/clearance in the statutory record and without cover of invoices and without payment of duty are liable for confiscation. He has admitted in his statement dated 04/04/2001 that a few consignments of windows/doors were supplied from their factory to M/s.B.G Shirke construction site at Wadala. In his statement dated 03/07/2001 he admitted that steel doors and windows supplied to M/s.BG Shirke Construction Technology Ltd., were manufactured from regular or general raw material purchased by M/s.Basic Arch Products (P) Ltd. hence they did not send the certificate regarding procurement of raw materials from reputed specified companies like SAIL, Tata, Jindal, LLOYDS, etc. to M/s.B.G Shirke Construction Te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
