9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of natural Justice and accordingly fit to be set aside - matter remnaded back to the file of the Adjudicating Authority to re-adjudicate the show cause notice after providing a copy of the said report of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise Division-III, Kanpur - appeal allowed by way of remand. - APPEAL No. E/1899/2008-EX[SM] - A/72275/2018-SM[BR] - Dated:- 16-3-2018 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri Ashish Kumar Shukla (Advocate) Shri Mitul Agarwal (Advocate) for Appellants Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi (Asstt. Commr.) AR for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The appellant is engaged in manufacture of PARAS brand Gulab Jamun Mix and Nutree, Spices and Pickles Most of their items o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances of PARAS brand Gulab Jamun Mix and Nutree/Soya Badi in the Financial Year 2003-04 and onwards. Accordingly, the duty payable was worked out as follows:- Sr. No. Description of the Goods Clearances effected during 2003-2004 Clearances effected during 2004-2005 (upto 07/10/2004) ASSESSABLE VALUE DUTY INVOLVEMENT ASSESSABLE VALUE DUTY INVOLVEMENT 1. PARAS BRAND GULAB JAMUN MIX Rs.4,73,865.00 Rs.75,818.40 Rs.4,46,565.00 Rs.71,450.40 2. PARAS BRAND N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of exemption limit. The said intimation bears the acknowledgement of the office of the concerned Deputy Commissioner dated 15/04/2003. In the said declaration the appellant had given all the details as required, the location of the factory for description of goods manufactured by them, value of clearances during the preceding Financial Year wherein they have declared clearance of spices and pickles at ₹ 13.79 crore, Nutree/Soya Badi ₹ 12.19 lakhs, Gulab Jamun Mix ₹ 17.36 lakhs, further stating that both Nutree and Gulab Jamun Mix were cleared under brand name 'PARAS' owned by the appellant. However, their contention was not accepted and the proposed demands confirmed. Being aggrieved appellant had preferred appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he also denied the signature of the officer posted in the dispatch branch to be of the signature appearing on the declaration dated 10/04/2003 and stated it to be different. As such I am of the view that the declaration submitted by the party in their defence to the extended proviso invoked seems to be false and misleading. Further, since the very fact that the party never filed any declaration has been found to be false as such all the case law relied in support of their contention fail at the very outset and the department plea for extended period is correct from all the aspects. 5. Accordingly, the Additional Commissioner concluded that the appellant had never filed any declaration based on the report of the Deputy Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
