9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irected against Order-in-Appeal No. RPS/220-221/NSK/2013 dated 17.07.2013. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in this case is regarding the demand of duty on the goods clandestinely removed from the factory premises by Appellant No.1 i.e. MITC Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. during the period 10.08.2010 to 31.08.2010. 4. On investigation carried out by the Directorate Ge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice. As regards the personal penalty imposed on Shri Champsi M. Shah, he submits that being Director, there is no reason for imposing penalty on him. 6. Learned D.R. submits that the question of considering the value as cum-duty is not correct as the goods were clandestinely removed. It is his submission that the duty liability is correctly worked out against the clandestine clearance made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also in the case of CCE v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. - 2002 (141) ELT 3 (S.C.) wherein the ratio has been that any amount collected on which duty is demanded needs to be considered as cum-duty value. Respectfully following the same, the value indicated in the show-cause notice has to be considered as cum-duty and duty liability needs to be quantified working back on appellant No.1 accordingly. Appellant h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
