2015 (11) TMI 697

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy One only) being the differential duty on the finished goods cleared during the period from February, 2000 to March, 2004 under Proviso to Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944, confirmed interest under Section 11AB, imposed penalty of Rs. 12,26,471/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy One only) under Section 11AC ibid and imposed personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 26 of Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001 and Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on Shri Nanda Gopal Gandham, Proprietor of M/s. Talupula Industries. 1.3. On scrutiny and verification of records, it was observed that the appellants ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... steel products and Railways are paying the erection charges separately. It is the stand of the department that the value of galvanized steel products manufactured by Talupula Industries and supplied to the firm owned by the same proprietor has to be based on the value of the materials as per the purchase orders issued by Railways. It was submitted that the contract entered into between Railways and the appellants bifurcates the value for the supply and erection handled for the purpose of broad categorization of the contract value. It was submitted that if the value of the goods adopted by the appellant is compared with the cost analysis method, the value adopted will be much more than 115% of the cost of production and therefore there is n....