2019 (5) TMI 505

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellant pointed out that they are engaged in the manufacture of "Coated Calcium Carbonate" as well as "Calcium Carbonate". The coated calcium carbonate is liable to pay duty whereas the uncoated calcium carbonate is exempt. He pointed out that they are also engaged in trading of calcium carbonate. During the investing at one of the buyer's premises, it was found that the Calcium Carbonate cleared by the appellant as 'uncoated Calcium Carbonate' was found to be 'coated Calcium Carbonate'. On the basis of said evidence, the revenue has sought the demand of duty on all their clearances treating them as clearances of 'coated Calcium Carbonate'. He argued that during the search at the factory premises, a large quantity of uncoated calcium carbo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ued that the original adjudicating authority also held that certain amount of material was traded by the appellant, therefore, they excluded the said value of clearances from the total assessable value. After excluding these value and granting benefit of small scale exemption demand of Rs. 3,14,484/- was confirmed along with interest and penalty. The penalty of Rs. 20,000/- was imposed on Sh. R.N. Patel. The Revenue challenged the said order before Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the description of traded goods in the purchase document and sale document was different. He pointed out that in these circumstances, it cannot be held that the said goods were traded goods merely on the strength of CA Certificate. He a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... person, and on that basis allowed the appeal partly. He argued that in view of the admission of 13 different buyers, such cross examination should not have been relied. 4. We have gone through rival submissions. We find that in this case, the allegation is that the appellant have cleared the coated calcium carbonate in the garb of uncoated calcium carbonate. It not disputed that the appellant manufacture both kind of calcium carbonate. The sample tested at the premises to M/s hexon, one of the buyers, show that the product cleared by the appellant as 'uncoated calcium carbonate' was 'coated calcium carbonate'. Thereafter statement of various buyers was recorded and most of them have admitted that they have received 'coated calcium carbo....