9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1582X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority is a reasoned and well considered order analysing the evidence adduced before him. The concurrent findings of fact by both the authorities, which do not suffer from perversity, do not necessitate interference in an appeal under Section 35-G of the Act. Application dismissed. - C.E.A. No.176 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 26-9-2018 - SRI RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, JJ. For The Petitioner : MR B NARASIMHA SARMA JUDGMENT: {Per Hon ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan} This appeal, under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act (for short the Act ), is preferred against the order passed by the CESTAT in Appeal Nos.31216-31217 dated 15.06.2017. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of Rotary Drilling Rig Trailer Mounted along with purchaser order dated 12-2-1996 issued by Central Mine Planning Design Institute Ltd, to the appellant and declaring assessable value as ₹ 7,09,625.00 though the total amount of the contract was ₹ 28,11,125.00. Price list was approved provisionally subject to bond under rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the goods were cleared on that basis. Show cause notice dated 10-12-1986 was issued proposing demand of differential duty on the entire amount of the contract less the value declared on the ground that all the equipments covered by the contract were essential parts of the Rotary Drilling Rig Trailer Mounted. Appellant resisted the notice contending that the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 3,15,500.00 One set of fast moving spares as per specification : ₹ 2,11,000.00 Total : ₹ 28,11,125.00 7. The contract itself shows the value of operating equipment and accessories as ₹ 3,15,500.00. The lower authorities have not given any reason for holding that the value has to be added. According to the appellant, operating equipment cannot be regarded as an essential part of drilling rig and accessories are optional accessories which are not necessary for the functioning of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue shown in the invoices fro KLR-250 model is undervalued and what exactly is the cost price or assessable value of the R- 1000 model, iii) in respect of other clearances of the rigs during the material period either it has not been proved that the mdoel cleared is other than KLR-205 or there exist any evidence that KLR had received any extra amounts representing the price of the rigs cleared and iv) no proof has been brought on record that KLR had indulged in clandestine manufactures and removal of some spares and optional items along with the rigs. IN cases of clandestine manufacture and clearance or undervaluation, the burden of proof squarely lies on the Department. The data contained in private records or the statements recorded at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk that the appellant should be given the benefit of doubt in the facts and circumstances of the case particularly when the proceedings are penal in nature 101. In fine, I would also like to make some observations in so far as the allegation of undervaluation in the instant case is concerned. The goods manufactured in the instant case are of such nature that they are tailor made to the specifications of individual customers. Thus it is seen that the activity of manufacturing rigs involving mounting of required parts/components on a chassis is totally different from the activity of manufacture of consumer goods. In case of allegations of undervaluation with respect to consumer goods it may be possible to identify the vari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommercial Taxes, that the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority and CESTAT suffer from perversity, a finding of fact can be said to be perverse only if it is either based on no evidence or is such that no reasonable person would have arrived at such a finding. The Tribunal is the final Court of fact and an appeal against the order of the Tribunal would lie to this Court only on a substantial question of law. While a perverse finding would undoubtedly give rise to a substantial question of law, we are satisfied, in the present case, that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the original adjudicating authority, and the CESTAT affirming the order of the adjudicating authority, do not suffer from any such infirmity. The or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
