TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove, we do not find any valid justification in the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for ordering 5% of extra duty deposit. Therefore, prima facie appellants made out grounds for stay of the impugned order relating to 5% of extra duty deposit. Accordingly, we direct the department to collect 1% extra duty deposit as per the Boards Circular till the disposal of the appeal. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - C/MISC/40250/2014 in E/40630/2015 - MISC. ORDER No. 41154 / 2015 - Dated:- 1-9-2015 - Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member And Shri P.K. Choudhary, Judicial Member For the Petitioner : Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Adv. For the respondent : Shri B. BAlamurugan, AC (AR) ORDER Per: R. Periasami The applicant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... viewed the transaction value and accepted the transaction value. The department already accepted all the above review orders of AC(SVB), whereas, the Revenue had preferred appeal only on the ground of addition of royalty amount. Whereas, the Commissioner (Appeals) has gone beyond the scope of grounds of appeal suomotto and raised fresh issue of Professional and Consultancy Charges , which was not in the grounds of appeal by the Revenue. He further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has ordered to collect Extra Duty Deposit of 5%. He relied Board s Circular No. 11/2001 dated 23.02.2001 and as per the Board s Circular only 1% of extra duty deposit has been ordered till finalisation of provisional assessment. The department can order for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imely replies being sent to the Questionnaire to avoid any higher deposit being insisted. As per the Board s guidelines for extra duty deposit is presently kept at 1%. Only when the importer fails to submit complete reply to the questionnaire, the department can order extra duty deposit of 5%. Whereas, in the present case, we find that the appellants were importing the goods from their related overseas suppliers from 2008 and the department consistently accepted the transaction value for the year 2008 and again in 2011 and again in 2014 vide various AC/DC (SVB) OIO s dated 04.06.08, 23.03.2011 and 04.06.2014. In view of the above, we do not find any valid justification in the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for ordering 5% of extra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
