TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rage of the same, i.e. ₹ 350/- and arrived at the tariff value as 60% of ₹ 350/- and thereafter the total assessable value and duty liability. We, therefore, set aside this part of the impugned order and remand the matter to the original authority to recompute the value of the goods cleared based upon the MRP of ₹ 350/- per piece. Return of goods - whether the assessee has not been able to bring on record the corresponding invoices under which the goods were originally cleared and also what happened to the goods after return? - Held that:- Keeping in view the fact that the assessee is a small scale manufacturer and the duty on garments were introduced for the first time in 2001 and was withdrawn in 2002 and the dispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts cleared will require to be reduced from 88613 to 84050 pieces. Invocation of extended period and penalty under Section 11AC - Held that:- As we find that during the whole year i.e. 2001-2002, the assessee did not bother to take any registration or pay any excise duty. Thus there was a blatant defiance of law. There was suppression of facts and contravention of various provisions of Central Excise Law with a wilful intention to evade duty. We, therefore, hold that the extended period of limitation under Section 11A as also penalty under Section 11AC are imposable. Argument for non-imposition of penalty on the grounds of being illiterate etc. is also not acceptable. - E/1992 & 2054/2005-Mum - Final Order Nos. A/400-401/2015-WZB/EB - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tariff value. The second issue is relating to certain goods claimed to have been returned by the buyers and the Commissioner (Appeals) has extended the benefit in respect of the said returned goods. The third issue is relating to duplication of certain invoices. 3.1 As far as the first issue is concerned, we find that the investigation has revealed that the assessee was affixing MRP on the garments from ₹ 325/- to ₹ 375/- per piece. In the demand notice, ₹ 350/- has been taken as the average MRP and thereafter computed the tariff value, i.e. 60% of the MRP and the duty has been computed accordingly. The original authority also adopted this method. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken the average sales value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pened to the goods after return. Keeping in view the fact that the assessee is a small scale manufacturer and the duty on garments were introduced for the first time in 2001 and was withdrawn in 2002 and the dispute is pertaining to that period and the assessee was not aware of the central excise procedure and also the fact that Revenue has not made any attempt to correlate or tabulate the goods cleared, it is not under dispute that the said goods have come from their buyers whose statements have also been recorded by the Revenue, it will not be appropriate to reject the assessee s claim. We also note that the assessable value will be required to be recomputed in view of our direction relating to MRP in respect of such goods also and the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts and contravention of various provisions of Central Excise Law with a wilful intention to evade duty. We, therefore, hold that the extended period of limitation under Section 11A as also penalty under Section 11AC are imposable. 4. The appellant-assessee in his appeal has mainly argued for non-imposition of penalty on the grounds of being illiterate etc. We do not find any force in the argument and as already held above, the penalty under Section 11AC is imposable. We accordingly dismiss the appeal of the appellant-assessee. As far as the appeal of the Revenue is concerned, the matter is remanded back to the original authority to recompute the duty liability, interest and penalties as per the direction given above. 5. The appeals a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
