Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2004 (4) TMI 526

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nge iron etc. electricity is one of the most important input. Four show cause notices dt. 20-9-96, 1-11-96, 3-2-97 and 10-6-97 were issued to the Appellants in respect of the period from April'96 to June'96, July'96 to Sept'96, Oct'96 to Dec'96 and Jan'97 to April'97 respectively demanding allegedly short paid duty during these periods from the Appellant alleging that on the basis of power consumption by the Appellant, their actual production is much more than what they have declared and the undeclared production of MS Ingots has been clandestinely cleared. The basis of this allegation against the Appellant was that while as per the experiments conducted by the Department in a similar unit of M/s. Alfa Castings, it had been found that for p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion for production per m.t. of MS Ingots as 1100 units, the Commissioner confirmed the total duty demand of Rs. 5,65,508/-. The Commissioner also imposed total penalty of Rs. 1,99,367/- under Rule 173Q(1) of Central Excise Rules,1944 as well as Section 11AC of Central Excise Act which had come inforce w.e.f. 28-9-96. Against this order of the Jt. Commissioner, the Appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) which were disposed of vide order-in-appeal No. 86-87 & 88/CE/APPL/KNP/2007 dt., 2-3-07 by which while the duty demand against the Appellant was upheld, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 90,000/-. It is against this order that the present three appeals have been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. 2.1 Sh. Atul Gup....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....  Sh. S.N. Srivastava, learned DR, defending the impugned order pleaded that the Commissioner has rightly adopted the ratio of 1100 units per m.t. which has been experimentally verified in the cases of Hans Castings; that in the Appellant's unit, in certain months, the power consumption was about 1000 units per m.t. while it was 1399 units m.t. during other months, which only shows that there was unaccounted production; that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Triveni Rubbers & Plastics - 1994 (73) E.L.T. 7 (S.C.) has held that in a case where substantial quantities were found to have been removed without making entries in relevant records, the duty demand calculated on the basis of the production estimated only on the basis of power ....