TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 737
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....zed from the premises of M/s. R.P. Locks is to be re-examined for passing fresh order. Matter was remanded accordingly for denovo adjudication granting cum-duty benefit. 1.2 Learned Adjudicating authority in the re-adjudication proceeding found that the shortage of 4,116 locks detected on 29.9.2000 by investigation during physical inventory was established and only re-determination of value thereof allowing cum-duty benefit was to be made. That was done. Appellant s plea that the value of each lock is to be considered at Rs. 24.32/- was not accepted by him. Referring the matter to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, he re-determined cum-duty price of 4,116 locks and arrived duty liability of Rs. 28,954/-. 1.3 So far as shortage of raw material is concerned, learned Adjudicating authority found clandestine removal of 1,49,524 key locks evading Central Excise Duty of Rs. 10,51,824/-. He noticed that 250 gms of CR Strips were used for manufacture of 1,49,524 of number of locks valued at Rs. 76,75,725/- out of shortage of 37,381 kgs of C.R. strips and 4526 kgs of MS wires detected during investigation. Those were unaccounted and removed clandestinely. Appellant s plea that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n any discrepancy but whimsically the investigating authority made allegation of shortage of 4,116 locks without proper examination. Therefore, there shall be no demand on that count by arbitrary valuation of goods. 3.2 Revenue, on the other hand, submitted that the Tribunal in first round of litigation has held that the shortage of 4,116 locks of Harrison brand was established. Therefore, appellant has no scope to re-agitating on this issue except re-determination of the value of the locks granting cum-duty price and work out duty liability thereon with consequence of evasion. 3.3 Revenue is correct to say that shortage of 4116 locks established in the reported decision aforesaid. Appellant did not place any material to suggest that the determination of cum-duty value of such locks was erroneous. When no cost sheet was placed by appellant to show the material component in each lock, labour and overhead charges incurred as well as financial expenses made, it is difficult to discard the finding on valuation made by learned Adjudicating authority. Therefore duty demand of Rs. 28,954/- on such count is confirmed. 4.1 On the second issue of shortage of 37,381 kgs. of CR Strips....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of duty. This can be said following the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of Alagappa Cements Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CEGAT, Chennai reported in 2010 (260) E.L.T.511 (Mad.). Therefore, appellant fails on this count of demand also. 5.1 The third count of demand of Rs. 3,72,202/- arose on account of job worked value of the goods. This is opposed by appellant on the ground that locks were manufactured in the premises of the appellant without availing services of many concerns. There was no job working done. The Authorized Representative s evidence as to installation of only two machines by the appellants for manufacture of locks is of no relevance. Appellant further pleaded that they were not issuing material outside for job working but they employed contract workers within factory and making payment for manufacture of locks inside factory. Such payments were called job work charges. Revenue s presumption that the goods were job worked is therefore incorrect. Similarly, valuation of the alleged job worked goods is also erroneous. 5.2 Learned Authorized Representative for Revenue argued that Adjudicating authority found that five firms M/s. Good Luck Painting works....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of cum-duty price. Appellant made plea that the locks found in M/s. R.P. Locks were duty paid and it was left open to M/s. R.P. Locks to defend. So also the determination of the value of the goods was arbitrary for which demand of Rs. 1,87,015/- was not sustainable. But learned investigating authority found different sizes of locks in that premises and seized the same in absence of evidence of duty payment 6.2 Revenue on the other hand submits that the goods found with M/s. R.P. Locks were the goods of the appellant. That remained undisputed. Appellant failed to substantiate lawful clearance thereof. Therefore, in absence of evidence of payment of duty the demand of Rs. 1,87,015/- should not be interfered. 6.3 When there was seizure of the locks of different description from the premises of M/s. R.P. Locks, appellant did not disclaim clearance thereof from its factory. The specification of locks seized proved that those were the manufactured goods of the appellant. When the appellant failed to produce evidence of lawful clearance of the specified description of the goods and duty payment evidence, the only inference that can be drawn is that premise of M/s. R.P. Locks....