2018 (1) TMI 629

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... cost data sheet provided by M/s Jaitex Silk Industries. The Appellant were also availing deemed credit on such clearances in terms of Notification No. 29/96 CE (NT) dt. 03.09.1996. Subsequent to the investigation by the department into turned out that the cost of raw material was quoted less by M/s Jaitex which led to less duty payment at the end of the Appellant on processed fabric. Accordingly show cause notice dt. 20.07.1998 was issued for the period Jan 98 to May 98 wherein a demand of duty of Rs. 5,51,002/- was demanded from the Appellant alongwith M/s Jaitex. It was also proposed to disallow deemed credit of Rs. 3,76,249.59 on the ground that the value of raw material was suppressed which resulted into short levy and hence due to suc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erial. That the facts came to light only after investigation at M/s Jaitex and nothing incriminatory was found at their end. He takes us through the statement of proprietor that the value of grey fabrics was always furnished by the merchant manufacturers under their own declaration. Shri Mehra proprietor of the Appellant Unit was also shown few purchase bills of M/s Jaitex to which he stated that the misdeclaration has been done on part of M/s Jaitex due to declaration of lower value by M/s Jaitex and they are unknown of the same. The statement of Shri R. Prasad employee of the Appellant company was also recorded who on being shown the grey bills of M/s Jaitex stated that such bills were not submitted/to them for submission of price declara....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ELT 119 (BOM) (i) Lajya Dyeing & Bleaching Works 2008 (224) ELT 345 (SC) 3. On the other hand, Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, learned Asstt. Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that the Appellant is liable for duty being manufacturer and that second SCN can be issued for extended period. That the burden of proof of having no knowledge of alleged evasion is on the Appellant. He relies upon following judgments : (i) Vadilal Embroidery Unit 2001 (131) ELT 193(T) (ii) Neminath Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. - 2010 (256) ELT 369(GUJ) (iii) Speed-O-Graph - 2014 (314) ELT 283(T) (iv) Afloat Textiles (I) Pvt. Ltd. - 2009 (235) ELT 587(SC) (v) T.Manivannan - 2017 (348) ELT 513 (T) ....