TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly 35 Nos. of computers and not 50 Nos. as computed by the department. Their plea is 15 numbers had come for annual maintenance and that they had contracts with their customers and sufficient evidence is available. The rejection of the evidence by the Commissioner as an after-thought is challenged on the ground that the documentary evidence prevails over the statement recorded and non consideration of the documentary evidence has resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice. The main ground in this appeal is that the duty computation has not been correctly worked out and the various deductions claimed has been unjustly rejected. It is pointed out that the issue pertains to deduction of value of bought out items namely printe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. DR submits that the appellants have not paid duty and therefore cannot claim deduction on cum duty price. The cited larger Bench decision of the Tribunal is being contested before the Hon ble Apex Court, in view of the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Bata India reported in 1996 (84) E.L.T. 164 (S.C.) which is in Respondents favour. 5. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides and on perusal of the records we notice that the Commissioner has proceeded on the basis of the Statements recorded at the time of investigation to compute the number of computers manufactured and cleared. He has rejected the plea that 15 computers were received by the Appellants for annual maintenance on the plea, it is an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f computers manufactured by the Appellants. (b) number of monitors manufactured by them. (c) consider the appellants claim regarding various deductions. (d) That the assessable value has to be treated as cum duty price in terms of Tribunals Larger Bench citations noted supra. Thus, in view of the judgments and decisions cited above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Original Authority for de novo consideration. The original Authority shall take all the evidence which had been produced by the Appellants and re-determine the case after granting an opportunity of hearing in the light of the several judgments cited above. Thus the Appeal is allowed by way of remand. - - TaxTMI - TMIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
