9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1709X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il pack in their own factory and issued commercial invoices on higher value, thereby they suppressed the value of the finished goods cleared from the factory. In their ER-1 return, they have not declared the correct clearance value of retail pack whereas they have declared in the ER-1 return only the bulk snuff of tobacco and its value to mislead the department that they have declared the goods in bulk form only. With this modus operandi, the department could not know about their activity of payment of duty on the bulk and removal of goods in the retail form, therefore, there is a clear suppression of fact and mis-declaration on the part of the appellant. The extended period was rightly invoked in the facts of the present case - the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... snuff having assessable value of ₹ 11,28,235/- (arrived at on basis of cum duty price) were cleared by the appellant without preparing appropriate central excise invoices for the retail pack involving central excise duty to the tune of ₹ 7,19,651/- and out of this amount an amount of ₹ 1,92,165/- was already paid by them on such tobacco snuff in bulk, thereby they evaded central excise duty amounting to ₹ 5,27,486/-. Sh. Ashish B Amin, Proprietor of the appellant concern in his statement admitted the above fact, accordingly, they have voluntarily paid an amount of ₹ 1 Lac towards duty evaded before issuance of SCN. 2. In this circumstance, the SCN dated 15.03.2007 was issued to the appellant for demand of cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R-1 return at the relevant time, therefore, there is no suppression of fact on the part of appellant. He submits that they have correctly declared the production and clearances in their ER-1 return. The extended period cannot be invoked on the ground that certain information was not declared in the ER-1 return which otherwise was not required. He placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his submission: * Dynamic Industries Ltd 2014 (307) ELT 15 (Guj.) * Accurate Chemicals Industries 2014 (310) ELT 441 (All.) * Ultratech Cement P. Ltd 2014 (302) ELT 334 (Guj.) * Himalayan Tea P. Ltd 1997 (94) ELT 52 (P&H) 4. Sh. S.N. Gohil Ld. Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised by the Ld. Counsel, we find that even though there is unambiguous Chapter Note in Chapter 24, the appellant have intentionally devised a method whereby first they have cleared bulk snuff of tobacco captively and issued invoices and paid the duty thereon, thereafter the same goods were re-packed for retail pack in their own factory and issued commercial invoices on higher value, thereby they suppressed the value of the finished goods cleared from the factory. In their ER-1 return, they have not declared the correct clearance value of retail pack whereas they have declared in the ER-1 return only the bulk snuff of tobacco and its value to mislead the department that they have declared the goods in bulk form only. With this modus opera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
