2018 (6) TMI 1417

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Member ( Judicial ) Shri M. Kannan, Advocate For the Appellants Shri R. Subramaniyan, AC ( AR ) For the Respondent ORDER Per Madhu Mohan Damodhar The facts of the case are that M/s.Maharaja Paper Board (P) Ltd., appellant in E/394/2011 (hereinafter referred to as appellant-company), were engaged in manufacture of paper boards for availing SSi exemption Notification No.8/2003-CE. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Rs. 12,80,462/- with interest for the period 1.4.2006 to 08.10.2007 and also imposition of penalties under various provisions of law. In adjudication, the adjudicating authority vide order dt. 30.03.2010 confirmed the proposed demand with interest, imposed equal penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act on the appellant company and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each on Shri P.G. Radhakris....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of appeal E/394/2011, Ld.Advocate made the following submissions : i) Value of paper board for the purpose of quantification should be fixed at Rs. 12 per kg. as adopted by the appellant company and the quantification of the differential duty would therefore be required to be re-determined. ii) As the appellant company had not collected any duty amount from UPC, the demand of differential ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not the exception. On the other hand, we find that SCN in para 15.1 to 15.5 has elaborately gone into the raison d'etre for adopting the value of Rs. 13 per kg. We find that the very same invoices had been produced before the lower appellate authority who, in Para 13 of the impugned order has noted that they were invoices beyond the period of dispute. The plea of the appellant on this score is the....