TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 1305
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant. Ms. Anuradha Parab, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent. ORDER Heard both sides and perused the records on the case. 2. The appellants herein have filed appeals against penalties imposed on them vide order-in-original dated 13-12-2010 issued against the appellants and main party i.e. Vidhyut Metallics Pvt. Ltd. The Appeal (E/455/2011) filed by the main party has si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... previous proceedings, Learned Commissioner vide some orders for previous period has confirmed only demand with interest but specifically refrained from imposing penalty on the main appellant and/or other co-noticees. He also relied upon Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of SKF India Ltd. - 2009 (239) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.). 5. Learned Authorised Representative for the department reite....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee worked out the cost of production during the said period on the basis of balance sheet for the previous year. On calculation of the actuals, the value declared by the appellant was lesser than the value actually calculated. However, Learned Commissioner find that the appellants could have opted for provisional assessment under Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and that cost of production....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in a position to know the exact cost of production of goods as the same would be known after the finalisation of accounts for the year 2006-07. An assessee cannot be asked to do the impossible. Neither the department nor the assessee was in a position to indicate the correct value at the time of clearance of the goods. It is not the case of the department that the assessee had misdeclared the as....