9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spensing with pre-deposit, we take up the appeal. 2. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the appellate Commissioner's order upholding order-in-original No. 37/2012 dated 30.03.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner. The impugned demand of duty is on the goods cleared from the assessee's factory in Chittoor District (A.P) to their depot in Bangalore during April 2008 to September 2011. The assessee had paid duty on such goods on the basis of the factory gate invoices. They ensured that the very same goods were cleared at the very same price from their Bangalore depot and that the same amount of duty which they paid at the time of clearance from the factory was collected at the depot. After certain amount of investigati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conclusion reached by the appellate authority is contradictory to the findings recorded in the body of its order. In this connection, the learned counsel refers to para 11 of the impugned order, which reads as under: As per Rule 7 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 where the excisable goods are not sold by the assessee at the time and place of removal but are transferred to a depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises (hereinafter referred to as[such other place] from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the place of removal and where the assessee and the buyer of the said goods are not related and the price is the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the lower authorities. The learned counsel therefore prays for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. Alternatively, he submits that, in the event of a different view being taken by this bench, a reasonable opportunity has to be granted to the assessee to prove their case before the original authority. 4. We have also heard the learned Additional Commissioner (AR) who reiterates the findings of the original authority and argues in support of its conclusions. However, he is not able to say for certain that order-in-appeal No. 59/2012 ibid has been reviewed in the department for an appeal to this Tribunal. 5. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, we have found this case fit for remand. The substantive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order. In the body of its order, the appellate authority took a view against the Revenue and recorded certain findings vide para 11 (supra). However, the conclusion turned out to be adverse to the assessee. In other words, there is total mismatch between the findings and the conclusion in the impugned order which, in any case, requires to be set aside. 6. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed by way of remand with a request to the original authority to take fresh view on the valuation issue after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of adducing evidence and of being personally heard. We expect that authority to pass a speaking order on all issues, untrammeled by any observations on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
