9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Agarwal, AR for the Respondent. Per: B. Ravichandran: The appeal is against order dated 09.09.2009 of Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal. The appellant are engaged in the manufacture of branded refined edible oil liable to Central Excise duty. They are availing SSI exemption. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant to demand Central Excise duty on two grounds: (i) They have been col ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty from the buyers. Regarding undervaluation of the goods, it was submitted that the depot was not a place of removal and the cost of transportation to depot cannot be added. We note that the appellant claimed that they have not collected excise duty from the buyer even though the invoices indicated excise duty separately, they have submitted that these invoices are for stock transfer to depot. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s claims made by the appellant are not supported by any evidence. 3. Regarding the collection of Central Excise duty by the appellant, we note that even in the show cause notice it was mentioned that the appellants charged 8% Central Excise duty on invoices and collected from the buyers. Accordingly, it was recorded that this is considered as a decision of the appellant for not opting for SSI exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of Rs. 10,17,780/- which is equal to the Central Excise duty confirmed on both the grounds. On perusal of the order, we find no discussion or justification for imposing such penalty. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the ends of justice will be met if the penalty is reduced to Rs. 2 lakhs. 5. We note that the finding in the impugned order regarding recovery of ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
