9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1850X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firm M/s Navin Electricals. A Search was conducted on 03.06.2003 on various premises of the appellants and the statements of the appellants were recorded. After conducted through investigation and resuming various records, it was concluded that the appellants were clearing the goods more than the permissible SSI Exemption, therefore, they are liable to pay duty on their clearance. In these set of facts, the show cause notices were issued and the matter was adjudicated. 3. The appellant also approached the Settlement Commissioner who rejected the declaration, thereafter, the appellant approached the Hon'ble High Court and writ petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court. Thereafter, the adjudication took place, the appellants sought ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es mentioned in the challans. 5. He further submits that the statement of Shri. Sandeep Gupta dated 10.06.2003, has stated that ratio of clandestine removal was 60%-40%. Though the statement was retracted but assuming for argument sake that the statement was correct, the appellant would be liable to pay very small amount of duty. 6. He further submits that the Commissioner has committed an erred in including recorded sale in the total value of clearance as all the goods were cleared on the basis of challans. He also submits that the Commissioner has not considered the capacity of manufacture of the appellant and duty has been demanded on the quantity which is much beyond their production capacity. He also relied on the certificate issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or calculation of demand duty and the same has not been considered by the adjudicating authority. In fact, those calculations given by the appellant are required to be considered by the adjudicating authority. Moreover, the defences raised by the appellant are to be considered by the adjudicating authority in true spirits and after considering the explanations and chart given by the appellant. As, the adjudicating authority was required to give due consideration of the records produced by the appellant but the same has not been given, in that circumstances, the impugned order deserves de-merits, therefore, the same is to be set aside. 12. We find that the various contentions raised by the appellants were not considered by the adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
