2019 (10) TMI 491

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....atra, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR The brief facts of the case are that the appellant have received various inputs for manufacture of final products on payment of CVD and SAD and availed Cenvat credit. Part of the inputs were sold as such, on which the duty was paid on the transaction value. However, there was short payment of duty in terms of Rule 3(5) of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....original and therefore the present appeal. 2. Shri Ragesh S. Mehta, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, at the outset submits that, according to the appellant, the duty amount was Rs. 9,77,045/- which they have paid along with interest before issuance of show cause notice and the same is not contested by the appellant. His submission is that the amount of Rs. 11,04,819/- is not cor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was appearing in ER-1 returns. He further submits that even the case is made out based on the appellant's record and therefore there is no suppression of facts on the part of appellant. Hence, the penalty under Section 11AC was not imposable. 3. Shri L. Patra, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is Rs. 9,77,045/-. The Adjudicating Authority obtained report from the field formation however, the report was obtained at the back of the appellant after concluding the hearing. Since in the report also there is difference of Rs. 1,27,774/- it was incumbent on the Adjudicating Authority to provide a copy of the report and seek explanation from the appellant, which the Adjudicating Authority has ....