9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e applicants suppressed production of excisable goods and short paid the duty. 2. The contention of the applicants is that the demand is on the basis of a report of Dr. Batra, IIT Professor. As per the report, the consumption of electricity for manufacture of 1 MT of MS ingots is 1046 unit. If this consumption is taken into consideration, the applicant has shown the consumption of 1149 units for the manufacture of 1 MT of MS ingots. The contention of the applicants is that in absence of any other evidence regarding procurement of raw material and clearance of goods without payment of duty, the demand cannot be sustained on the basis of electricity consumption. The applicant relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of R.A. Casti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court directed the assessees to deposit 25% of the duty amount for hearing of the appeals. 5. We find that in this case the demand is confirmed on the basis of electric consumption as well as after taking into consideration the data in respect of cost of production and sale considerations. The adjudicating authority held that the per MT cost of production of finished goods was worked out on their reported turnover as per the audited financial account for the year 2007-08 the cost of production per MT for the period March 2008 to August 2008 is Rs.33,476/- whereas the transaction value per MT as per ER-1 returns is only Rs.31,690/- which is much less than even the cost of production. In view of this finding, we find that the demand is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d penalties is waived and recovery of the same is stayed. 7. Further, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the appeals on merits. The appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act as the appellants failed to comply with the conditions of the stay order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). As the Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the appeals on merits, therefore the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide afresh, on showing the deposit of the above mentioned amount of Rs.12,00,000/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) will decide the appeals afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
