TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quantification of duty or penalty in the impugned order. 2. The original authority had, in adjudication of a show-cause notice, confirmed a demand of duty of Rs. 26,849/- against the first appellant (assessee) and had imposed on them equal amount of penalty. It had also imposed equal amount of penalty on the second appellant (Managing Director of the assessee company). The above amount of duty was demanded on assessable value of Rs. 6,71,236/- which was determined to be the value of computer stationery found to have been cleared in excess of the limit (Rs. 10.00 lakhs) for the month of March 2002 prescribed in SSI Notification No. 8/2001-CE dated 1-3-2001 (as amended). In an appeal filed by the assessee against the decision of the Assista ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted by corroborative evidence. In this connection, learned counsel has referred to the Board s Circular No. 11/91-CX-4 dated 15-10-1991, wherein products which had a fiduciary value in excess of intrinsic value, such as cheques, forms, stock certificates, bills of lading, documents of title, rail tickets (whether for use on computers or others) were classified under Heading 49.01. On this basis, it is submitted that the share certificates issued by the assessee in March 2002 were falling under Chapter 49 and hence not to be included as part of computer stationery of Chapter 48. According to the appellants, if such documents were excluded, the correct value of clearances for the month of March 2002 would have been well within the SSI limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not say that the relevant records are not with the department. If the records are with the department, what stands in the way of the original authority returning the records or supplying copies thereof to the assessee to enable them to make out a case against the demand of duty? Natural justice cannot be denied on flimsy grounds like the above. We, therefore, are of the view that the case should be dealt with by the original authority afresh by supplying the relevant records to the assessee and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Of course, that authority should also grant the benefit of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) as directed by the Commissioner (Appeals), to the assessee. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
