TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 407
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....factory, the factory of another group company which was adjacent to the appellants factory, company office, residential premises and the director's and other premises etc. on 26.05.2005 and also the premises of various dealers, sub-dealers, customers etc. on 26.05.2005 and also on various other dates. SCN dated 09.05.2007 was issued which was culminated into adjudication order dated 19.12.2008 wherein the demand of duty, penalty, interest and penalties on Directors were also confirmed. Being aggrieved by the order in original, the appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order dated 31.12.2009 set aside certain portion of the demand (from April 2002 to May 2003) and upheld the balance demand and imposed equivalent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e novo proceedings after series of cross examination and hearings, the Commissioner vide order dated 08.05.2013 dropped major portion of demand amounting to Rs. 9,37,00, 072 (out of Rs. 10,25,56,737/-) holding that there was no evidence of under valuation against SDPL except the statements of various persons, the contents of which were retracted / denied while cross examination. However, the Commissioner confirmed partial demand of Rs. 88,56,665/- and imposed specified amount of penalty on SDPL, its directors as well as dealers/ sub-dealers. Against the said order in original dated 08.05.2013, SDPL and others and the Department also filed appeals before this Tribunal. This Tribunal vide Order dated 01.05.2014 reported in 2014 (308) ELT 90 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de by both the sides and perusal of records, we find that there is no dispute on the fact that on the basis of common relied upon documents, statements both the cases i.e. SDPL's case and the present case was made out. Since after consideration of all the documents, cross examination in the same statements this Tribunal in the case of Mekala Raja Plywoods (supra) set aside the entire demand by allowing the party's appeal and dismissing the Revenue's appeal, the charges in the present case also not sustainable. Since the same statements which were relied upon in the present case have been retracted by the witnesses those statements commonly used in the present case do not have any substance as all the statements lost its truthfulness. Admitt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d of approximately Rs. 88 lakhs, the adjudicating authority in his findings in Para 60 onwards has come to the conclusion that the main appellant had under-valued the goods. To come to such a conclusion, we find that the adjudicating authority has not recorded any acceptable reasoning as to how he came to such a conclusion. We find that in Para Nos. 48.1 and 48.2, the adjudicating authority has recorded that under-valuation is alleged from the fact that the dealers and the sub-dealers had some price lists which when compared with the prices shown in the invoices raised indicated difference. We find that the reasoning given by the adjudicating authority seems to be incongruous inasmuch as all these dealers from whose premises the price lists....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... papers. It is noticed that this kind of working out of the differential duty was never contemplated nor put across to the appellant in the show cause notice nor is it coming out from the adjudication proceedings that the appellants were informed of such kind of re-working out of the assessable value. On this ground alone, the entire demand as confirmed by the adjudicating authority is liable to be set aside. 13. As regards the appeal filed by the Revenue, we find that the adjudicating authority, after examining the records and the statements recorded and the cross-examination, found that the statements which indicated under-valuation of the goods were effectively nullified by the cross-examination. In the entire records, we find that af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the assessable value, is the law which has been settled by this Bench in the case of Magna Laboratories Guj. Pvt. Ltd. in Final Order Nos. A/10017 to 10019/2014, dated 7-1-2014 wherein in Paragraphs 11 & 12, we have held as under :- "11. It can be seen from the above reproduced findings of the adjudicating authority that he has abandoned the allegations made in the show cause notice and has held that the price charged by M/s. US Vitamins Ltd., cannot be the price on which excise duty can be demanded from the main appellant. Having recorded such findings, the adjudicating authority in all fairness have dropped the proceedings initiated but he has gone beyond the allegations and has confirmed demands by recording findings which wer....