Judgment: 1. The assessee herein is a manufacturer of PTY/Twisted yarn falling under Chapter Heading 5402 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On the basis of intelligence received by officers of the Anti-Evasion Directorate that they are indulging in evasion of duty by resorting to under-valuation and clandestine clearances of PTY, that they were clearing PTY from the factory gate to fictitious buyers at a lower value while actually transferring the goods to godown at Bhiwandi and later selling them at higher prices, search was conducted in the godown in Bhiwandi and the premises of transporters. Show cause notices were issued alleging that the assessees have issued invoices to show that the sale had been effected at the factory gate whereas sales were actually effected from godown and warehouses of the transporters at Bhiwandi and that the sale price shown in the invoice did not reflect the correct assessable value since the buyers names shown in the invoices were fictitious. It was proposed to determine the value of the goods under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules 1975. 3 show cause notices proposing recovery of total amount of Rs. 1,54,11,222/- with interest for the period September, 1996 to July 1999 and proposing imposition of penalty were issued. Penalty was also proposed on the Director of the transport company. The Commissioner who adjudicated the notices dropped the charges raised in the show cause notices; hence this appeal by the Revenue.
2. We have heard Shri S.V. Parelkar, Ld. D.R. and perused the records; none appeared for the respondents in spite of notice.
3. We find that in identical circumstances, the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Vapi v. Blue Blend (I) Ltd. and Ors. v. Commissioner [2004 (173) ELT 182 upheld the Commissioner's order and rejected the appeals of the Revenue, relying upon the earlier orders in Rishab Refractories Pvt.
Ltd. [1996 (87) ELT 93] and Beekaylon Synthetics v. CCE, Surat [2003 (158) ELT 307]. In those as well as in the present one, it was proposed to compute the value of the PTY on the basis of Bank's statement furnished by the manufacturer to the Bank for claiming credit facility, which computation was not accepted by the Commissioner and his order was upheld by the Tribunal.
4. Following the ratio of the above decisions which are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, we decline to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal.