TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 548
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the appellant, residential premises of the proprietor - Mr. Ashish Guar, and the godown of one M/s.Arkaylite Electricals, a Trader in electrical goods, Proprietor - Shri Ajay Gupta. In the course of search, certain documents were resumed. Statements of about 16 persons were recorded, which has been relied upon in the show cause notice. The demand of duty by the Department is primarily worked out on the basis of a rough register (RUD-26), which was recovered from the factory, alleged to be showing movement of the goods i.e. removal of finished goods and receipt of raw/packing materials. Such data was found to be not tallied with the RG-I register. The show cause notice dated 8.6.2015 was issued about 20 days before the end of 5 years from the date of search. 3. On the basis of scrutiny of the documents resumed vide panchnama and the statement of various persons, it appeared to Revenue that the appellants have cleared unaccounted goods on kachcha documents (slips) as mentioned in the rough register (RUD- 26) recovered as per Annexure C and D to the seizure memo-cum-panchnama dated 28.06.2010. The details of production /clearance of finished goods are alleged to be shown in the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atory was dropped. 5. The Adjudicating Authority reworked the duty liability as follows:- DETAILS OF CALCULATION A Assessable value as per Annexure X of SCN Rs. 119775922 B (-) Less value of Bi-metal deducted (raw material) Rs. 15451884 Remaining Value Rs. 104324038 C (-) Less value of packing material deducted (3834000 + 1761800) Rs. 5595800 Remaining value Rs. 98728238 D (-) Less value deducted on account of discrepancies in quantity of boxes Rs. 21097220 E Net value (A-B-C-D) Rs. 77631018 F (-) Less value deducted on account of discrepancies found in no. of pcs. per box R. K and Rajdhani brand. Rs. 21746280 Remaining value as per annexure 'B' Rs. 55884738 G (-) Less value of seized goods Rs. 3684630 Total value before abatement (MRP) Rs. 52200108 H (-) Less abatement @ 35% Rs. 18270038 Final value for duty liability (E-F-G-H) Rs. 33930070 Duty @ 10.3% Rs. 34,94,797 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), inter alia, on the ground that the rough register, on the basis of which the demand has been confirmed, was not the production regist....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the invocation of extended period of limitation stating that out of 34 statements relied upon, 30 statements were recorded during the period 28.06.2010 to 15.02.2011 i.e. within a span of 8 months. Thereafter, the Department practically did nothing for about 2 years and 9 months and thereafter, two statements were recorded in the month of November, 2013 and another in Feb., 2014. Thereafter, again after about 15 months, the show cause notice was issued on 20.06.2015, on the basis of evidences collected and resumed and the statements recorded prior to 16.02.2011, as the subsequent statement has not been relied upon. It was further urged that the Revenue is not in appeal against dropping of the major portion of the demand as per the show cause notice. Thus, it is evident on the face of the records, that the show cause notice was issued on the basis of the wild guess work, which is against the spirit of the best judgement assessment. 8. So far the alleged admission of proprietor as to clandestine removal made, the same was retracted within a week and hence, such admission is vitiated being under coercion and duress. The proprietor of the appellant was called by the Department for rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Total value before abatement Rs. 5,08,76,822/- E (-)Less abatement @ 35% Rs. 1,78,06,888/- F Final value for duty liability Rs. 3,30,69,934/- Duty @ 10.3% Rs. 34,06,203/- 11. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 12. The appellant has reiterated the grounds more or less which are similar to the ground before the Commissioner (Appeals) which have been mentioned hereinabove. The learned Counsel further urges that the Commissioner (Appeals) have erred in observing at para 42 of his order that after reconciling the figures the assessable value to would come to Rs. 2,06,02,634/- and duty would come to Rs. 18,251,643/-. It is urged that the appellant have no one submitted such calculation. The appellant has for their calculation in para 12 of the grounds of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) have admitted turn over as regards goods cleared in brand name belonging to other personsa at Rs. 24,42,680/- on which duty works out to Rs. 2,51,596/- being @ 10.30%. Further the rejection of the grounds of the appellant by the Commissioner (Appeals) particularly estimation of turn over by Revenue beyond the installed capacity is bad. Further, the....