TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1022
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the case are that based on intelligence collected that poly propylene bags are removed in a discreet manner without payment of duty, the officers conducted surprise inspection of the premises of Shri Sampath Kumar, Director of M/s.Ram and Ram Poly Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as M/s.Ram Poly). On scrutiny of the documents, it was observed that M/s.Ram Poly was engaged in manufacture of Lay Flat Tubings and Plastic Bags and are not registered with the Central Excise department has manufactured of these goods. M/s.Ram Poly is a private limited company with two directors, one of which wife of Director, Shri Sampath Kumar besides Shri Sampath Kumar. Four Polypropylene extruder machines with sealing facility were found av....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4,83,798 The SCN also proposed interest on differential duty and imposition of penalties on the noticees under various provisions of law. 3. In adjudication, Commissioner vide impugned order dt. 31.12.2009, inter alia ordered as follows : "44. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I order as follows : i) The duty as worked out by M/s.Sai Poly Industries in Annexure-I and II for the period 2003-04 and 2004-05, of their reply subject to the above modifications is confirmed under proviso to Sec 11A (1) of Central Excise Act, 1944. The quantification of the demand between the LFT and PP bags, as done by the noticee in Annexure-I & II in respect of the period for which invoices are available, is subject to the producti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ufacture and clearance of LFT/PP bags without payment of duty, and without compliance of Central Excise procedures. 47. All the above three units shall also pay appropriate interest on the duties demanded by this order under Sec 11 AB of Central Excise Act, 1944. 48. I impose penalty of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) on Shri P.R.Sampath Kumar under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002." 4. Aggrieved, M/s.Sai Poly Industries have filed Appeal E/177/2010 and Shri Sampath Kumar and M/s.J.K Fishnets have filed appeals E/178/2010 & E/179/2010 respectively. 5. Department also is aggrieved on the action of adjudicating authority directing the Range Officer for quantification of the demand after verification of the invoices prod....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent is however aggrieved that Commissioner should have quantified net duty liability without delegating that to the Range Officer. We find merit in this argument. In an order issued by the Commissioner, as adjudicating authority, the quantification of the duty or differential duty confirmed will have to be worked out and reflected in the order itself. Towards this end, the adjudicating authority may very well call for verification report in case it is necessary from a Range Officer etc. However, arriving at the net duty liability or net differential duty liability is not only the prerogative of such adjudicating authority but it is also his responsibility. This being so, we remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for the limite....