9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il 7,23,098/- M/s. Bajrang Lal Agarwal Appeal/Stay Duty (Rs.) Penalty (Rs.) E/391/09 SP-560/09 10,00,000/- E/393/09 SP-562/09 14,21,983/- 14,21,983/- E/390/09 SP-559/09 58,24,735/- 59,33,424/- E/1384/09 SP-563/09 85,43,646/- 86,66,816/- E/1395/09 SP-564/09 17,64,668/- 17,64,668/- 1,75,55,032/- 3. The Ld. Consultant had submitted that the appellants are manufacturing Ingots and Sponge Iron and they had cleared to their other units on stock transfer basis and excise duty was determined and paid on the assessable value at which similar goods manufactured and sold by them. A show cause notice was issued to them in the year 2006 alleging integrated method of determination of assessable value of goods cleared on stock transf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law. 5. Ld. D.R. on the other hand submitted that applying the ratio of the Larger Bench case in Ispat Industries (supra) the adjudicating authority has directed the Jurisdictional Divisional Assistant Commissioners as these units fall under different locations to verify from the sales invoices issued by the appellant during the relevant period as to whether similar goods which were sold from the factory at the same price at which the goods were cleared on stock transfer basis to their one unit during the period. The respective Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioners on the basis of invoices produced for verification by the appellant, they have recommended for adoption of sales price to the stock transfer goods wherever the same are at par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said argument of the Ld. Consultant that the invoices were produced but not considered. Also we do not find any contrary facts in the report of the jurisdictional officer which was relied upon by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order other than verification of the invoices produced before them to find out whether at the same price the goods were sold to outside buyers at which the same were cleared to their sister units. Besides the appellant had also failed to enclose any of the invoices with the paper book nor the consultant had repeated request from the Bench to produce at least a few sample of the invoices at the time of hearing. Hence prima facie we are of the view that the applicant had failed to produce the invoices before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
