2009 (3) TMI 710

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the Appellant. Shri K. Lal, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of certain, excisable goods falling under Heading 7318 of the CETA Schedule, prior to 8-7-2005, the date on which they sold their plant and machinery to one M/s. N Cube Fasteners Pvt. Ltd., Pune. At the time of sale of plant and machinery, they h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....respect of both the goods. The show-cause notice was issued in October, 2007 invoking the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act demanding differential duty on the differential value of the goods, i.e., inventory value minus sale value. This demand was contested. The original authority confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty. The decision of that authority came to affirmed by th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....othing more than the duty paid thereon can be demanded. The appellant has also contested the demand on the ground of limitation by submitting that nothing was suppressed from the department. We are not impressed with this claim. There is no evidence to show that goods identical to the finished goods had been cleared from factory in the immediate past at or nearly the same price as charged to the b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng relied on the inventory value of the goods for the purpose of demanding differential duty. In these applications, there is no plea of financial hardships. There is nothing to indicate that the balance sheet was shown to the department at any point of time and therefore the allegation of suppression cannot be brushed aside at this stage. 3. In the result we direct the appellant to pre-de....