9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not justified in not considering the written reply submitted by the appellant. The duty demand has been raised on Matrix Emulsion (input) by considering the price at which output, Site Mixed Explosive, has been cleared from their Dhanbad unit, which is not permissible under Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules. However, the Ld. Commissioner, in his impugned order in para 3.8, while justifying the valuation adopted by him has clearly noted that both the goods which were cleared by the appellant to their sister unit as well as those cleared to independent buyers are the same - in the Reply filed the appellant, which has not been considered by the Ld. Commissioner while adjudicating the matter, has submitted the production process involved in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the normal limitation. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Excise Appeal No.75465 of 2016 - FINAL ORDER NO.75032/2021 - Dated:- 2-2-2021 - SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI P. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri Kartick Kurmy Rajesh Sharma , both Advocates for the Appellant Shri S.S.Chattopadhyay, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER The instant appeal has been filed by the assessee, M/s. Black Diamond Explosives Pvt. Ltd, assailing the Order dated 20.01.2016 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur, whereby demand of central excise duty of ₹ 4,68,84,408/- has been confirmed alongwith equivalent penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act (the Act) read wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et, submitted that the Ld. Commissioner has not taken into consideration the Reply filed on 16.10.2015 against the SCN, whereas, the impugned Order has been passed on 20.01.2016, i.e. three months after the date of filing of Reply. He relied on the decision of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Ramesh Candra Kushwaha vs. Pr. Commissioner, Customs (Airport) 2018 (362) ELT 575 (Cal) to submit that the impugned order is illegal and has been passed in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and hence, the same should be set aside. (ii) On merits, he submitted that the goods (Matrix Emulsion) which have been classified by them under Ch. 3602.00.90 which have been cleared from their Burdwan factory is not a final produ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the findings made by the Ld. Commissioner and submitted that despite the appellants were given adequate opportunity to file their written Reply, they did not file within the time prescribed as also recorded in the impugned Order. The appellant has been very reluctant at the time of adjudication. The documents which are now being submitted, were never presented before the Ld. Commissioner and therefore, the demand has been rightly raised. He accordingly prayed that the appeal be rejected being devoid of any merit. 6. Heard both sides through video conferencing and perused the appeal records. 7. The issue involved herein is whether the value of goods removed by the appellant to their unit located at Dhanbad would be in terms of Rule 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery thereof to the independent buyers. The appellant has also submitted the license issued by concerned department under Explosives Act to justify their claim that goods in question, i.e., Matrix Emulsion is not an explosive and they are not entitled to sell such goods to any third party and hence do not have any market. 9. We are of the view that since factual issues are involved as noted above, it would be just and proper that matter is remanded back to the Ld. Commissioner who would examine the said facts and pass a reasoned order by considering all the contentions raised by the appellant as above as well as that may be further submitted duly supported with documents in the remand proceedings. 10. In so far as the invocation of ext ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
