9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr R Subramaniyan, AC (AR) ORDER Per: D N Panda: Cllubbing of the clearances made by the manufacturing unit of the appellant with three fictitious units created by it, was made in the hand of the appellant and adjudication was made levying duty demand of Rs. 5,85,262/- as well as penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- under Rule 9(2) read with Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. So also penalty of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... make any allegation of under-valuation of the clearances made by appellant, the Adjudicating authority re-assessed the clearances making over-valuation thereof adopting trading value which is inconceivable. In absence of such allegation in the show-cause notice Adjudication is bad and ill founded as well as fails to stand. 2.3 So far as penalty is concerned, learned counsel submits that even if t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here was no material on record to suggest that fictitious units were in reality manufacturers. Those were neither registered with the Excise Authorities nor machinery were installed by them to carry out manufacture. There is no evidence of any purchase of raw material, consumable or packing material nor payment of electricity charges to prove manufacture was made. There was also no muster roll of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was under-valuation of the clearances made. Therefore, adjudication on such count of arbitrary valuation fails and value disclosed by appellant shall be followed to recompute duty liability of appellant on clubbing all four clearances. 5.4 So far as penalty is concerned, looking into the gravity of the matter, upon redetermination of duty element adopting the value of clearances declared by appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
