Hindustan Granites Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Bangalore)
The appeal arose from an order confirming central excise duty, interest and penalty against the appellant for the period September 2004 to October 2006 on allegations of undervaluation and clandestine removal of marble and granite slabs. The matter had earlier been remanded by the Tribunal for de novo adjudication after directing consideration of the evidentiary value of documents under Section 38B of the Central Excise Act. In the fresh proceedings, the adjudicating authority again confirmed the demand, leading to the present appeal. The appellant contended that the proceedings lacked admissible evidence, that cutting and polishing of slabs into tiles did not amount to manufacture till 01.03.2006 in view of the Supreme Court decision in Aman Marble Industries, that the adjudicating authority wrongly treated another entity as its branch despite separate legal status, and that allegations of clandestine removal were based on freight registers, route card reports and gang saw registers without considering wastage, rejected slabs, exports or industry practice. The appellant also argued that the adjudicating authority travelled beyond the show cause notice by applying Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 instead of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, relied on inadmissible computer printouts without complying with Section 36B, wrongly invoked the extended limitation period, and adopted DTA sale prices without admissible evidence.
