2016 (12) TMI 91

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ving at the assessable value of the processed goods in terms of principle laid down indicated in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints. The appellant paid duty accordingly. Later on during investigation it was noticed that the merchant manufacturer had not declared the correct price to the appellant and as a result there was under valuation. The demand was confirmed on the differential assessable value and equivalent penalty was imposed on the appellant. A penalty of Rs. 15,000/- was also imposed on the co-appellant namely, Shri Bharat Parekh, partner of the main appellant. The appellant challenged the said order before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide order dated 18/04/2001 confirmed the demand of duty.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Bleaching  2008 (224) ELT 345 (SC). To asset that in the absence of any role of the appellant in the mis-declaration extended period cannot be invoked and penalty cannot be imposed. 3. Learned AR argued that the appellant had not submitted separate declaration for each lot and therefore, there was suppression on the part of the appellant. He argued that the appellants were working under the self assessment scheme as introduced vide notification No.36/96-CE(NT) dated 20/11/1996 and therefore, the onus of declaring correct assessable value was on the appellant. Learned AR further argued that the issue of liability of job worker is settled by the decision of Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sangam Processors (Bhilwara) Ltd. &n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ircumstances, the only interpretation of para 6 (a) would be that the duty amount has been confirmed against the appellants whereas recovery of deemed credit has been ordered against the merchant manufacturer. 5. It is seen that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lajya Dyeing & Bleaching (supra) has observed as follows: "7. In further appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal, relying upon an earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Paras Prints Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 662 (Tribunal), held that in the absence of any allegation in the notice or finding of the Commissioner that the appellant knew or deliberately failed to declare the correct cost of the grey fabrics and also the....