9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods were diverted to local market instead of being used by the manufacturer/exporter who procured duty free goods - there are no discrepancy in the reasoning of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in adopting the methodology prescribed in the said two circulars. Consequently, the contention of the appellant for adoption of the transaction value of the diverted goods cannot be accepted. Penalty - HELD THAT:- The penalty imposed is too harsh and needs to be reduced - Consequently, the penalty reduced to ₹ 50,000/-. Appeal allowed in part. - E/806/2010 - Final Order No. A/86049/2019-WZB - Dated:- 19-2-2019 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (J) and Shri P. Anjani Kumar, Member (T) Shri N.S. Patel, Advocate, for the Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal. Hence, the present appeal. 3. The Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that in the first round of litigation before this Tribunal, they have submitted that all the issues raised by them since not considered, this has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. In the remand proceedings also, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand ignoring the fact that after receipt of the goods from their Kandla unit the same-were sold in the open market, hence the transaction value at which the goods were sold ought to have been considered for the purpose of determination of duty and not the initial value-at which the goods were cleared to their Kandla unit. 4. Per contra, the Learned AR for the Revenue ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufacturer/exporter who procured duty free goods. We do not find any discrepancy in the reasoning of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in adopting the methodology prescribed in the said two circulars. Consequently, the contention of the appellant for adoption of the transaction value of the diverted goods cannot be accepted. However, the adjudicating authority besides confirming the differential duty has also imposed penalty of ₹ 5,64,333/- under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the penalty imposed is too harsh and needs to be reduced. Consequently, we reduce the penalty to ₹ 50,000/- and appeal is partly allowed to the extent of reduction of penalty me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
