9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant in March 2006. After the completion of investigation, proceedings were initiated to demand and recover Central Excise duty of Rs. 11,88,463/- from the appellant. The Original Authority, after due adjudication, passed order dated 13/12/07 confirming the demand and imposing equal amount of penalty. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order rejected the appeal and upheld the original order. Aggrieved, the appellant is before us. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant admitted the duty liability wherever extra considerations were received from the buyers over and above the invoice amount. However, he contended that the demand raised on the basis of value of moulds arrived at based on st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he proprietor of the appellant firm, the conclusion was arrived that the value of footwear moulds shown in the bills is not correct transaction value and the appellant mis-declared the same to evade payment of Central Excise duty. Regarding correct valuation of the impugned goods based on evidences collected and the appellant s own admission, the calculation was concluded. Though, admittedly the appellant is free to dispute and challenge the duty payment afresh in the appeal proceedings before us it will be worthwhile to note that before another statutory authority, the Settlement Commission, the full duty liability has been accepted by the appellant. Admittedly, the present appeal is to be decided only on material evidence available on rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants before the Hon'ble Settlement Commission in consonance with other incriminating documents resumed from the appellant s premises, admission made by the appellants vide various statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, various statements of buyers admitting the purchase of impugned goods without bills and by not declaring the actual transaction value of the dies when cleared against bills and purchase of raw material without bills from M/s R.K. Castings and other input suppliers, the case of clandestine removal of suppression of value of finished goods stands established". 5. After careful analysis of available evidence and the facts of the case, we find that the appellant could not make out a convincing case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
