TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 423
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....31.03.11. Since both the appeals arise the same issue, they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The brief facts that arise for consideration are the appellants herein were charged with evasion of central excise duty by clandestinely manufacturing/assembling computers system and clearing the same in the guise of trading items. Partners of the appellants in the system gave the names of the different buyers and their statements were also recorded, who had accepted that they had purchased and received fully manufactured computer system but the bills were raised by the supplier as parts of computer. After investigation was done, show cause notices were issued to both the appellants. The appellants raised the issue of quantification of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rocess of law reduced the duty liability on both the appellants and confirmed the same and imposed penalties on both the appellants. Aggrieved by such an order, appellants preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who also concurred with the view of the adjudicating authority and rejected the appeals. Hence these appeals. 4. Ld. consultant appearing on behalf of both the appellants submits that in this second round of litigation, the lower authorities have given them the benefit of only the cum duty price but has not given the deduction of the cost of bought out items like monitors from the value. It is his submission that the appellant has been taking up this point right from the reply stage and asking the lower authorities ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....6,06,276/- 6,03,530/- 5 Assessable value Rs.5,27,105/- Rs.78,721/- 6 Duty @ 15% Rs.79,079/- Rs.78,721/- He submits that the appeals may be allowed. 5. Ld. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that if any benefit is sought to be claimed by the assessee, it is for them to produce evidence of such claim. It is his submission that in the absence of any such evidence, claim cannot be entertained. It is his submission that both the lower authorities have followed the order of the Tribunal to the extent possible by giving the benefit to the appellants. 6. We have considered the submissions made at length and perused the records. When this matter came up for disposal earlier, we had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w cause notice wherein duty calculation has been worked out, indicate the existence of such purchase invoices. Both the lower authorities instead of accepting the chart produced by the appellant has put onus on the appellant to produce the evidences of the value of monitors claimed as deduction by the appellant, instead of accepting the fact that the said value can be ascertained by themselves from the records available in their possession. We note that such an exercise of the lower authorities is an incorrect, as the appellant has been from the reply to show cause notice stage, requesting lower authorities to give them copies of the relied upon documents, on which the show cause notice has been raised demanding the differential duty from t....