9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that the installed capacity (30,000 switches per month) as certified by the Chartered Engineer has not been found to be untrue or wrong, and the same was not considered without assigning any reason by the court below. It is also evident from the overall state of affairs that the appellant have not maintained proper records of the transactions. Further it is found that the Rough register (RUD-26) on the basis of which the quantum of clandestine removal has been estimated, is not reliable, as the author of the same Shri Sanjay has not been examined by the Revenue, neither the proprietor - Shri Ashish Gaur have been interrogated about the entry and interpretation in the said rough register. From the statement dated 15.12.2010 of Shri A. Gaur under Section 14 of the Act, it is found that there is no categorical admission of clandestine removal. Further this statement was retracted within a week. Further, Revenue have not worked out the source of raw material for manufacture of the huge quantity alleged to be clandestinely cleared, nor flow back of the proceeds of the alleged clandestine removal. Further, no adverse quantitative ratio has been found out nor any adverse ratio with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... moval of finished goods and receipt of raw/packing materials. Such data was found to be not tallied with the RG-I register. The show cause notice dated 8.6.2015 was issued about 20 days before the end of 5 years from the date of search. 3. On the basis of scrutiny of the documents resumed vide panchnama and the statement of various persons, it appeared to Revenue that the appellants have cleared unaccounted goods on kachcha documents (slips) as mentioned in the rough register (RUD- 26) recovered as per Annexure C and D to the seizure memo-cum-panchnama dated 28.06.2010. The details of production /clearance of finished goods are alleged to be shown in the said register. The value of goods and the duty liability have been worked out as per Annexure X to the show cause notice. The value of the clearance has been arrived at by taking the rate from the price list of one M/s.Arkaylite Electricals, buyer (Trader) of finished goods, which was resumed from the premises of the said trader. As per the said price list (RUD-47), it was seen that the rate of MCB of rating 6 AMP is ₹ 82 per MCB., therefore, the value of ₹ 82-- per MCB was adopted for valuation. Further, as all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 C (-) Less value of packing material deducted (3834000 + 1761800) ₹ 5595800 Remaining value ₹ 98728238 D (-) Less value deducted on account of discrepancies in quantity of boxes ₹ 21097220 E Net value (A-B-C-D) ₹ 77631018 F (-) Less value deducted on account of discrepancies found in no. of pcs. per box R. K and Rajdhani brand. ₹ 21746280 Remaining value as per annexure B ₹ 55884738 G (-) Less value of seized goods ₹ 3684630 Total value before abatement (MRP) ₹ 52200108 H (-) Less abatement @ 35% ₹ 18270038 Final value for duty liability (E-F-G-H) ₹ 33930070 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ource of the huge quantity of the raw materials required for the estimated production and alleged clearance, that no flow back of cash has been found for the alleged clandestine clearance. No unexplained cash has been found in the search of the factory premises or in the residential premises of the proprietor. The appellant also disputed the invocation of extended period of limitation stating that out of 34 statements relied upon, 30 statements were recorded during the period 28.06.2010 to 15.02.2011 i.e. within a span of 8 months. Thereafter, the Department practically did nothing for about 2 years and 9 months and thereafter, two statements were recorded in the month of November, 2013 and another in Feb., 2014. Thereafter, again after about 15 months, the show cause notice was issued on 20.06.2015, on the basis of evidences collected and resumed and the statements recorded prior to 16.02.2011, as the subsequent statement has not been relied upon. It was further urged that the Revenue is not in appeal against dropping of the major portion of the demand as per the show cause notice. Thus, it is evident on the face of the records, that the show cause notice was issued on the basis o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner (Appeals) re-calculated the duty as follows:- DETAILS OF CALCULATION A Remaining value as per annexure B on which duty liability is calculated in impugned O-I-O ₹ 5,58,84,738/- B (-)less value of seized goods ₹ 3,68,630/- C (-)value of appellant s own brand Lords Metson and unbranded MCB boxes ₹ 13,23,286/- D Total value before abatement ₹ 5,08,76,822/- E (-)Less abatement @ 35% ₹ 1,78,06,888/- F Final value for duty liability ₹ 3,30,69,934/- Duty @ 10.3% ₹ 34,06,203/- 11. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 12. The appellant has reiterated the grounds more or less which are similar to the ground before the Commissioner (Appeals) which have b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the transactions. I further find that the Rough register (RUD-26) on the basis of which the quantum of clandestine removal has been estimated, is not reliable, as the author of the same Shri Sanjay has not been examined by the Revenue, neither the proprietor - Shri Ashish Gaur have been interrogated about the entry and interpretation in the said rough register. From the statement dated 15.12.2010 of Shri A. Gaur under Section 14 of the Act, I find there is no categorical admission of clandestine removal. Further this statement was retracted within a week. Further, I find that Revenue have not worked out the source of raw material for manufacture of the huge quantity alleged to be clandestinely cleared, nor flow back of the proceeds of the alleged clandestine removal. Further, no adverse quantitative ratio has been found out nor any adverse ratio with respect to consumption of electricity is found. Admittedly, the total electricity bill for the two months in dispute is about ₹ 20,100/- or ₹ 10,000/- per month approximately. With such meager consumption of power and taking in view the installed capacity, as well as the idle time due to power failure or break down of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
