2017 (1) TMI 349

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....na Kant, Advocate for the Assessee Sh. G. R. Singh, AR for the Revenue ORDER Per B. Ravichandran Both these appeals are against the common impugned order dated 25.02.2011 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur. The main appellant is engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Bar liable to Central Excise duty. They were selling their final product directly to the customer as well as through ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f goods to the depot and the goods were sold on much higher value from their depot. Accordingly, a differential duty of Rs. 73,84,417/- was confirmed against the main appellant. Penalties were also imposed on the main appellant and on Sh.. Shrivatsa Rathi (second appellant) a Director of the main appellant. 2. We have heard the ld. Counsel for the appellants. He did not dispute the fact that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the fact that when there is clearance to depot the valuation has to be in terms of Rule 7 of Valuation Rules. Knowingly they have adopted lower value even though there is no sale of such goods at the time of clearance from the factory. But for detailed investigation by the department the whole short payment would not have been brought to notice. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ngs of the lower authority regarding liability of the appellant for penalty. We note that the appellants did not even bother to file any response when the demand notice was served on them despite of repeated reminders. 5. During the course of arguments, ld. Counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that they are not contesting the order on denial of opportunity to defend their case. He only pl....