9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty, to their depots, from where the goods are marketed. During the period July, 2000 to December, 2003, the payments of duty on the clearances from their factory to depots were made on the basis of an average price based on the contemporaneous prices at which the goods were sold at the depots. According to the appellants such payments were provisional till the exact prices at which the goods were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we have perused the same. It appears from these documents that the assessments for the period April to December, 2003 have been treated by the department as final. The decision communicated to the assessee in the letter dated 0812.2003 of the Deputy Commissioner has not been appealed against. In the circumstances, the appellants' claim of provisional assessment for the period April to December, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a demand of duty of Rs. 1,35,248/- as also rejection of claim for refund of duty of Rs. 2,65,544.45. In the remaining appeal, a demand of duty of Rs 1,68,212/- and rejection of refund claim of Rs.4,39,884/- are under challenge. In each of these appeals, the demand of duty and the refund claim arise out of the finalisation of assessments based on correct depot prices. Where the correct depot price ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company's representative has submitted today that they are possessed of all the relevant depot invoices covering the period July, 2000 to March, 2003. In the circumstance, we are of the view that the original authority should take a fresh decision in each case, after giving the assessee a reasonable table opportunity of adducing evidence in support of their refund claims. Hence, the orders passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
