TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t penalty imposed is not in consonance with the law by the Appellant, is not sustainable - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/2193/2012-SM - Final Order No. 22203/2017 - Dated:- 22-9-2017 - Shri M.V. Ravindran, Judicial Member Shri BN Gururaj, Adv. - For the Appellant Mr. J Harish, AR - For the Respondent ORDER This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 175/2012-CE dated 16.07.2012. 2. Heard both sides and produced the records. 3. On perusal of records, it transpires that Appellants heard during the period 02.04.2007 to 10.02.2009 removed dutiable goods to their own Unit on payment of duty in accordance with the Rule 8 read with Rule 9 of Central Excise Valuation Rules 2010. Although po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides and on perusal of records, it is noticed that the contentions raised by the Appellant before the First Appellate Authority is the same as is raised before the Tribunal. 7. In my view, the contentions raised by the Appellant that the Audit Party unearthed undervaluation of finished goods from their own records, cannot be considered as suppression of facts and intent to evade duty, is an incorrect propositions from the appellants, in as much on the issue regarding under -valuation, only the Appellant would know as to what is the correct value that needs to be applied for the discharge of excise liability. Having accepted the fact that during the relevant question, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication of the records by the audit and appellants themselves have not furnished any information or sought for any clarification on the issue on their own. The very fact that an identical issue of clearance of goods to their another units by undervaluation and evasion of duty to the tune of ₹ 18,83,558/- was noticed during the month of May 2009 by the audit party vide audit note no.125/2009 BG II dated 26.05.2009 itself proves that the appellants are not abiding by the law and deceived consciously and are using this modus operandi to gain unwarranted benefit by misusing the provisions of the Central Excise Law, thereby suppressing the material facts from the department with the sole intention to evade payment of duty. Hence, I find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
