9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers assail order-in-original no. 16/2008 dated 31st October 2008 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-I which has confirmed duty liability of Rs. 7,71,73,608/- under section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944, along with applicable interest and imposed penalties of like amount at the section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944, besides imposing penalties against the company as well as other individuals under rule 25 and rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. Proceedings were initiated against the Kolar Unit of the appellant's company who were in the business of manufacture of 'MS ingots' that were entirely cleared to their re-rolling unit at Whitefield. The case against the assessee was that, following the termination of their assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0.5 to 8 T capacity, that theoretically 400 KWh/T of power is required to melt one ton of mild steel in the induction furnace of 0.5 to 8 T capacity and to raise the temperature to 1630 C in any melting furnace. It was also pointed out that ideally, overall efficiency of an induction furnace comes to about 60% and specific power consumption rises to about 66KWh/T and that considering all practical operating parameters and conditions such as efficiency of DRI, tapping temperature, lining condition of induction furnace, yield percentage of liquid steel to solid ingot and the switching off the furnace during slag off, about 1427 KWh/T of power could be required to produce 1 MT of pencil ingots. In the said report, it is further stated that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rded statements disproved during cross-examination and the fact that an audit of the enterprise under section 14A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and, more particularly, the resort to inappropriate Rules for computation of assessable value justified the setting aside of the impugned order. 5. Learned Authorized Representative relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in Bhagwati Ispat Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal [2015 (328) ELT 423 (Tri. Del.)] and in Rattan Steel Works v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai [2009 (236) ELT 152 (Tri. Chennai)]. According to him, the adjudication order has not gone beyond the submissions of the assessee for ascertaining the utilization of power which was well covered by further removal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating to receipt of the alleged clandestinely removal inputs at the downstream unit or of diversion of such clandestinely manufactured goods to any other destination. It is undisputedly clear that there is neither an allegation, nor evidence, of any additions to the cost of production beyond that computed under rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 for the purpose of discharge of duty liability on the licit clearance of the goods. 7. The total cost of production over the period of dispute is not questioned. All that is doubted is the 'unit cost' arrived at for discharge of duty liability. The finding that the value declared by the appellant, on the basis of an inference that the cost ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
