2011 (8) TMI 826

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Per : Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order confirming the demand of differential duty of Rs.4,80,282/- alongwith interest and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are the manufacturers of M.V.parts which they cleared to their own factory at Gurgaon for captive consum....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....udicated and impugned demand alongwith interest and penalty was confirmed. On appeal before the first appellate authority, the adjudication order was confirmed. Therefore, the appellants are in appeal before us.       3. Mrs. P.Patil, the ld.advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that, in fact, the appellants have filed their price list during the impu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion by the appellants was well within the knowledge of the department and the said price list has been approved by the competent authority. To support this contention, she placed reliance on the decision in the case of Ballarpur Industries Ltd vs. Union of India reported in 1994 (74)ELT 795(Del.). She also relies on the decision in the case of Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs Commr.of C.E....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... has been issued on 29.6.98 for the period October,93 to March, 94 on the allegation of undervaluation of their clearances to their sister unit for captive consumption. In fact, it is on record that the appellants have filed their price list during the impugned period and the same was approved by the competent authority. Therefore, the allegation of suppression is not sustainable in the facts and ....