TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the respondents herein are manufacturers of excisable goods falling under Chapter 85 of the CETA, 1985 and have been clearing the same to their own divisions for use/captive consumption. The period involved in this case is 1-7-2000 to 31-1-2005. The lower authorities felt that there seems to have been short-payment of the duty and hence a show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest on the amount of duty confirmed by him and also imposed penalty under Rule 25 of the CE Rules. The respondents did not file any appeal against such an Order. Revenue being aggrieved by the Order of the adjudicating authority dropping the demand for the period prior to March, 2004 filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner (Appeals) also found that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee is working under the self assessment scheme. It means that more trust is placed on him and he is required to correctly assess the duty payable on the excisable goods. Sec. 4 of the Act and the Valuation Rules lay down the provisions for arriving at the correct value on which duty is to be paid. The assessee has admitted that the valuation done by him was wrong. Simply because he is a Gov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies and they have been filing the invoice copies also. It was for the Revenue to ask for the details which they did not do so. 5. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the grounds of appeal and the records. It is not in dispute that the goods which are manufactured and removed were removed on payment of duty for further use in the electric poles of the respondents. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any further, as a Govt. company having filed monthly returns with the Authorities and the Authorities having full knowledge of the transactions, could have caused verification, which apparently they did not do so. We find that the revenue has not made out any case for demand of duty prior to March, 2004. 7. In view of this, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the revenue. The said ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
