2011 (12) TMI 566

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....  Penalty (Rs.) E/392/09, SP-561/09 Appropriated Nil 7,23,098/- M/s. Bajrang Lal Agarwal Appeal/Stay Duty (Rs.)  Penalty (Rs.) E/391/09 SP-560/09   10,00,000/- E/393/09 SP-562/09 14,21,983/- 14,21,983/- E/390/09 SP-559/09 58,24,735/- 59,33,424/- E/1384/09 SP-563/09 85,43,646/- 86,66,816/- E/1395/09 SP-564/09 17,64,668/- 17,64,668/-     1,75,55,032/-   3. The Ld. Consultant had submitted that the appellants are manufacturing Ingots and Sponge Iron and they had cleared to their other units on stock transfer basis and excise duty was determined and paid on the assessable value at which similar goods manufactured and sold by them. A s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rity in passing the impugned order, were not handed over to them resulting violation of the principles of natural justice and hence the order is bad in law. 5. Ld. D.R. on the other hand submitted that applying the ratio of the Larger Bench case in Ispat Industries (supra) the adjudicating authority has directed the Jurisdictional Divisional Assistant Commissioners as these units fall under different locations to verify from the sales invoices issued by the appellant during the relevant period as to whether similar goods which were sold from the factory at the same price at which the goods were cleared on stock transfer basis to their one unit during the period. The respective Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioners on the basis of invoic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....icating authority but not considered. However, he could not produce the same before the Bench for his perusal therefore we find it difficult to accept the said argument of the Ld. Consultant that the invoices were produced but not considered. Also we do not find any contrary facts in the report of the jurisdictional officer which was relied upon by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order other than verification of the invoices produced before them to find out whether at the same price the goods were sold to outside buyers at which the same were cleared to their sister units. Besides the appellant had also failed to enclose any of the invoices with the paper book nor the consultant had repeated request from the Bench to produce at l....