2005 (9) TMI 528

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ri U.H. Jadhav, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order].- The appellants manufactured sintered products for captive consumption in another unit belonging to them. They filed a classification list under cover of regular invoices. They have been clearing the goods to the other unit as stated above. During the course of audit by the Department, it was found that the appellants have not included the co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the lower authority. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The learned advocate appearing for the appellants argued that the additional duty involved on the goods was paid on being pointed out that the element of profit taken while computing the assessable value of the goods was 19.4% instead of 14.4. Even though this was pointed out beyond a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed suppression or misdeclaration of value when the audit pointed out that correct amount of profit has not been added while computing the value of the captively consumed goods. When the appellants made good the differential duty, no further action was taken either in the form of demanding interest payable thereon nor did the Department impose any penalty. These circumstances reveal that the Depart....