TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity, based on the CAS-4 guidelines and Chartered Accountant's certificate submitted by the appellant vide their letter dated 10.8.2010, the matter is being remanded to the adjudicating authority. Penalty - Held that: - in view of the confusion that have occurred during the entire period of this dispute and also considering the decisions / judgments cited above, we hold that the penalty cannot sustain and for which reason the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q is set aside. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/761/2010 - Final Order No.43184/2017 - Dated:- 18-12-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri Joseph Prabhakar, Advocate - for the Appellant Shri R. Subram ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resulting in under valuation and short payment of duty to the tune of ₹ 49,38,660/- 2. They had destroyed rejected goods which had been manufactured, without bringing the same in their RG-1 account, without payment of duty thereon, and without following the procedure prescribed under Rule 49 for remission of duty, resulting in short payment of duty to the tune of ₹ 41,31,260/-, by regarding the same as clandestine removal. 3. They had wrongly availed credit to the tune of ₹ 16,79,759/- on the said rejected goods. 1.2 The show cause notice culminated in issue of adjudication order dated 7.7.2000 wherein the adjudicating authority confirmed the first two issues and demand duty liability of ₹ 42,08,620/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants and consequently the duty of ₹ 41,31,260/- and the penalty of ₹ 10 lakhs imposed on them on this charge are set aside and the appeal of the party is allowed. 18. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. The appellants shall be afforded an opportunity for making written submission and personal hearing before taking a final view in the matter on denovo consideration. 1.3 In denovo adjudication, the Commissioner vide the impugned order dated 7.9.2010 confirmed the demand of ₹ 35,88,820/- with interest in respect of VITs and ₹ 6,19,800/- in respect of VCTs with interest thereon respectively. Penalty of ₹ 10 lakhs was imposed under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. Today, when t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s only. Therefore, the Tribunal has not given directions to assess the goods on the basis of comparable values and has not given any instructions on CAS-4. This being so, the appellant cannot now seek valuation under CAS-4 at this stage. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the records. 5. The ld. AR is correct in stating that the Tribunal had given directions that the denovo adjudication has to be done only on considering that the goods cleared by the appellants are liable to be assessed by adopting value of comparable goods. However, these directions were undoubtedly for the adjudicating authority and were also followed by the said authority in full in the denovo proceedings. CAS-4 guidelines were discernibly not been introduce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
