9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 3,04,472/- should not be demanded from them as they evaded central excise duty on the processed fabrics manufactured by them by undervaluing the grey fabrics in connivance with the merchant manufacturers who under the provisions of notification 27/92-C.E. (N.T.), dated 9-10-1992 filed a declaration before the central excise authorities, authorising the job worker to perform all functions on his behalf. Notification 27/92 also enjoins upon the job worker to furnish all information relating to value of grey fabrics received by him. The scheme envisaged under notification 27/92 is for the avowed purpose of determining the value of the finished goods in the hands of a job worker. The original authority while adjudicating the case confirmed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the blame on raw material supplier; that when the value of grey fabric is misdeclared with the knowledge of job worker as brought out in the statement of Shri Ashok Kumar Tejraj Jain, proprietor of C. Raj Textiles (one of the grey fabrics suppliers) suppression can be alleged and penalties levied on the job worker; that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the new evidence brought before him for the first time; that the demand has been correctly worked and that penalties have been rightly imposed under Section 11AC on the company and on the director under rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Jaipur v. Bhilwara Processors Ltd. [2002 (146) E.L.T. 455 (Tri.-LB)] in su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abrics has been correctly arrived at for the purpose of calculating the differential duty, we observe that the Commissioner (Appeals) dealt with this aspect thus "The contention of the appellant that the demand amount of Rs. 3,04,472/- is liable to be reduced to Rs. 1,92,181/- as per statement attached thereto cannot be acceptable (accepted) as the same is not vetted by the departmental officers and not supported by the documentary evidence." During the proceedings before the original authority, while replying to the show cause notice the appellant agreed to pay the duty demanded but only asked for time. They did not appear for personal hearing nor any statement claiming that the differential duty payable is only Rs. 1,92,181/- was filed. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
