Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2014 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 1393 - CESTAT CHENNAIDuty demand - Depreciation on goods - Valuation of goods - Assessee does not dispute liability of duty - Commissioner (Appeals) held that the warehousing sanction had not expired when the demand was raised and in fact it was extended upto 8.9.2005 and therefore the demands originally issued is not sustainable and set aside the demand - Held that:- original demand is not legally sustainable because it was made even when the warehousing permission was valid and further the question whether they are eligible for depreciation was not looked into. We find that in fact the demand was confirmed without hearing the respondent. Therefore, we do not find any fault with the direction of the Commissioner (Appeals) re-storing status quo ante and directing that the matter be decided afresh keeping all the relevant facts and law in mind. While coming to this conclusion we take note of the submission of the respondent that they are not disowning their duty liability. They only want a fair and correct determination of the duty liability after allowing depreciation as per law and taking date of de-bonding into account while arriving at interest liability - Decided against Revenue.
|