TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 1108
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wdhary For the Respondent : Mr. R. K. Grover (DR) ORDER PER R.K. SINGH: This appeal is filed against order in appeal dated 24.11.2004 which upheld order in original dated 31.05.2000 in terms of which Central Excise duty demand of Rs. 6,29,468/- was confirmed along with penalties including the mandatory penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The Ld. Advocate fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch were enclosed as RUDs with the SCN. 4. We have considered the contentions of both sides. 5. We find that duty has been worked out on the basis of clearances computed on the basis of entries in various documents recovered during the investigation which were made part of RUDs enclosed with the SCN. The Director of the appellant in his statement has clearly admitted that the appellant was "manuf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or is there any allegation that the statement was under duress and was taken not voluntary. 6. It is also to be noted that the appellant did not submit any reply to the SCN nor did it appear for personal hearing either before the primary adjudicating authority or before the first appellate authority. The Ld. Advocate raised a contention that the impugned goods were made out of wire rods and that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd wire were the only raw material or that the impugned goods were manufactured out of wire rods. Indeed, as stated earlier, this plea was never taken by the appellant during investigation or during the adjudication process at the primary or first appellate authority level. 8. We have noticed that in the present case, the statement of the Director of the appellant assessee was never retracted an....