9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value of matches per bundle was arrived on such calculations - there is no error in such quantification of demand, though the appellant seeks the same to be modified and to be calculated adopting 5 kgs. of Potassium Chlorate per 100 units. Demand of duty on same goods for second time - Redemption fine - goods provisionally released to the appellants and later cleared on payment of duty - Held that:- Instead of confirming the duty demand on the seized goods and appropriating the duty already paid by the appellant has again passed order confirming the duty in this regard, which in our view cannot sustain - redemption fine is also unwarranted and requires to be set aside - confirmation of duty demand of ₹ 32,202/- requires to be set a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of Shri Nagarajan, Proprietor of the appellant Company was recorded on 03.12.2009 and later on 15.04.2010. After investigation, SCN dated 10.05.2010 was issued which after adjudication confirmed duty of ₹ 4,64,606/- with interest besides duty demand of ₹ 32,202/- on seized goods and imposed equal penalty under Section 11 AC of the Act. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, the Ld. Counsel, Shri M. Kannan was represented by the Ld. Counsel Shri Venkatachalam. He argued that quantification of duty based on utilization of 4 kgs of Potassium Chlorate is incorrect. The appellant had to pay duty of only ₹ 3,74,740/- when calculated on the basis of consump ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,74,740/- and seeks to reduce the demand confirmed to this extent. The main contention put forward is that the value arrived for the clearance on the basis of consumption of Potassium Chlorate is not correct and that the ratio of 5 kgs of Potassium Chlorate per 100 match units has to be adopted, instead of 4 kgs of Potassium Chlorate. The adjudicating authority has relied on the evidence of finished products manufactured and cleared by the appellants during the relevant period. This was conceded by Sh. Nagarajan in his statement given later on 15.04.2010. Appellants have not produced any reliable evidence to contradict the quantity of products cleared. So they cannot contend to adopt 5 kgs merely on the statement given by Shri Nagarajan. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
