9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the manufacture of cotton yarns. From November, 2002 onwards SSTL cleared cotton yarn on job work basis on receipt of the raw materials from SGF. The goods were removed to the consignment agents whereas the first appellant has not discharged the excise duty on the value of the goods sold at the premises of the consignment agents, instead they have paid excise duty on the value certified by the Chartered Accountant. The differential duty demand of Rs. 2,25,949/- was raised on SSTL. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on SSTL and also imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on SGF along with interest. Aggrieved by this, the appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals), as the job workers returned the goods to the principal manufacturer instead they have cleared directly to the consignment agents. Therefore, as per Section (4) read with Valuation Rules, the transaction value is on the price of the goods on which the consignment agent clears the goods to the buyer. The adjudicating authority has rightly determined the value. Hence, confirmed the demand. He also submits that they have not paid duty as pr the cost construction method. Whereas they initially paid duty on provisional basis by declaring the value to the department on the ground that SGF has to supply the actual cast of the raw materials and the finished goods. They have not worked out the cost of raw materials and the job charges. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consignment agents have sold to the buyers. The judgment relied upon by the Ld. AR in the case of Loharu Steel Industries Ltd (supra) and I.P.F. Vikram India Ltd (supra), rightly applicable to the present case. The appellants relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Ujagar Prints Etc. (supra) is not applicable to the present case, as the facts are different in the present case. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the adjudicating authority in confirming the demand of differential duty. However, we reduce the penalty imposed on SSTL from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- and the penalty imposed on SGF is set aside. Both the appeals are disposed of in the above terms. (Operative part of the Order prono ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
