Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 577 - CESTAT NEW DELHISSI Exemption - determination of turnover - Valuation - job-work - T.V. cabinets - Held that: - No value or duty liability can be fixed based on the previous year data and applying proportionality. The finding is devoid of legal basis. Even while considering the value of the clearances, for the year 1982-83, the Original Authority recorded that the Managing Director in his statement indicated that the turnover for 1982-83 was more than ₹ 40 lakhs and hence, the appellant’s plea that it is only ₹ 39.44 lakhs was not accepted. We find that the determination of value of clearance has to be based on the recorded evidence and not by a statement of any person even if it is a Managing Director. This is so because even the statement has not stated as to what is exact amount of the turnover. When in appeal, the appellant pleads that their turnover is only ₹ 39.44 lakhs based on the certain calculations, it is necessary for the Original Authority to give a clear finding instead of rejecting the same based on the general statements given by the Managing Director at the time of investigation. We also noticed that in the multiple proceedings initiated against the appellants, there were over-lapping findings resulting in improper imposition of penalties. This was observed in the remand order of the Tribunal also. In normal course, in order to find out the correct factual position and to arrive at the correct legal conclusion thereafter, we could have referred the matter again to the Original Authority. However, in the present case, no useful purpose will be served in such remand as the matter is more than 30 years old and all the relevant documents are not apparently available. In this factual position, we are left with no alternative except to set aside the impugned order for the various reasons discussed above. The appeal is accordingly allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|