2025 (10) TMI 1358

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s, all three appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Brief undisputed facts are that the Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Hot re-rolled products of Allow Steel falling under Chapter 72 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It was noticed by Department that Appellant had been selling their goods through their consignment agents located outside Tamil Nadu on stock transfer basis, who would raise bills on ultimate customers at a higher value which actually include transportation charges from the factory to consignment agent premises, loading and unloading charges, agency commission etc. and thereafter prepare a statement called 'sale parties' on a monthly basis and sen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eplies to the SCN/SODs and having considered the same in adjudication, the Adjudicating Authority, upon adjudication, confirmed the entire demands with interest and imposed equal penalty vide OIO Nos. 3 & 4/2016 dt. 26.08.2016. Aggrieved by the order of Original Authority, the Appellant appears to have filed Appeals E/42229/2016 & E/42230/2016 before Tribunal. In respect of other demand, the Adjudicating Authority passed OIO No.13/2015 dated 29.07.2015 which, on appeal by Assessee, was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 305/2016 (CXA-II) dated 17.08.2016. Against this OIA, the Appellant has filed Appeal E/42166/2016. 3. Heard Ms. S. Sridevi, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant and Ms. O.M. Reena, Ld. Additional....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dered for 50% predeposit considering that the contention of the Appellant is not acceptable and Assessee also paid the same. In this situation, for subsequent periods, they continue to adopt the same practice and did not pay the duty on transportation cost as per Rule 5 of Valuation Rules, thus intention to evade duty is clearly established. She placed reliance on the following case law : (i) CCE Nagpur Vs Main Mood Enterprises 2014 (303) ELT 279 (Tri.-Mum.) (ii) CCE Kanpur Vs LML Ltd. 2014 (303) ELT 130 (Tri.-Delhi) (iii) CCE Madurai Vs TCP Ltd. 2011 (263) ELT 581 (Tri.-Chennai) (iv) IOC Ltd. Vs CCE Raigad 2015 (327) ELT 582 (Tri.-Mumbai) 6. After hearing both sides and on perusal of records, the only....