9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 1008X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are in Appeal today against the same order dated 30th Sept. 05 passed by ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh. The Assessee is in Appeal in Appeal case No. E/56/06 while Revenue's Appeal is registered as E/43/06. The matter came up before the Bench on 4-8-09. There was a request by the Assessee for adjournment of the matter. Accordingly that was adjourned to 8-9-09. Although the matter was list ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee in respect of both the transactions. There was violation of the Valuation Rules. Therefore Adjudicating Authority imposed demand of Rs. 96,971/- in aggregate (Rs. 51,301/- + Rs. 45,670/-) toward duty invoking Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. However, penalty of Rs. 45,670/- was only imposed invoking Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the allegations. There is no reason stated in order in original by learned Adjudicating Authority as to why he did not levy penalty against the transaction related to transfer to sister concern involving duty element of Rs. 51,301/- while show cause notice proposed such levy. When we noticed such a feature, we carefully examined the Appellate order. Also we found that undervaluation was the bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in both the transactions, applicability of appropriate rule and law in respect of valuation, the allegation made in show cause notice and the consequences that shall flow, by the learned first Appellate Authority. If his order speaks on all these aspects with reason, that only shall stand scrutiny by higher Authorities. We expect that there should not be any failure to safeguard interest of justic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
