TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (3) TMI 199
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... when a surprise check was made at the Unit, it was found that during the month of September, 1984, appellants had produced 50 sets of V.C.Rs. These V.C.Rs were removed at a price lower than approved, allegedly resulting in a short levy of the order of Rs. 29,830.38 in respect of the differential value of Rs. 1,13,641/-. 2. According to the department, appellants were issued a Show Cause Notice on 27-12-1984, but they failed to submit any reply. The matter was, therefore, adjudicated by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Meerut ex-parte. 3. We have heard Shri J.S. Aggarwal, advocate for the appellants and Ms. Renuka Mann, SDR for the department. 4. The learned advocate submits that there was no intention whatsoever to undertake ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the goods, at the same time, as per sub-rule (5) of Rule 173C where there is likely to be delay in according approval, the proper officer is required to allow the goods to be cleared under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 under the scheme of provisional assessment. 7. In the circumstances, it is submitted that there is no case at all for imposition of penalty and that too of such a high amount of Rs. 25,000/-. 8. Appellants have relied on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Gwalior Reyon Manufacturing (Wvg.) Co. v. Union of India & Others [1982 E.L.T. 844] in which it was held that where price list was filed in form and manner prescribed under Rule 173C showing the price of the goods, though on the lower....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re suspending production from a certain date. When a surprise check was made at a later date, it was found that they were not only undertaking production but also they had taken clearances. When a Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellants, they failed to reply. They also failed to heed a reminder issued to them in this connection. In the circumstances, the matter had to be adjudicated ex-parte. 13. Now before us, there is no explanation as to why the appellants failed to reply to the Show Cause Notice or to defend themselves before the lower authority. It is claimed that appellants had taken clearances of 50 sets of V.C.Rs after submitting fresh price list. As evidence thereof, appellants have submitted copy of a letter dated the llth....