9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1099X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, DR ORDER Per: D. N. Panda Shri Nitin Mehta, ld. Counsel brings out that the demand of Rs. 17,65,609/- raised by adjudication order dated 29.6.2005 comprised following demands: (i) Allegation of non inclusion of amortized cost of moulds gave rise to demand of Rs. 5,39,775/- (ii) Allegation of non inclusion of interest element to the assessable value gave rise to demand of Rs. 11,88,368/-, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not confronted to the appellant for rebuttal. Therefore appeal succeeds on the count of demand of Rs. 37,466/- comprised in aggregate demand of Rs. 17,65,609/-. 3. On the second count of demand, contention of ld. Consultant is that interest element has already been included in the assessable value. Ld.Authority has neither examined invoices and worksheet nor opportunity of hearing was granted to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not alter the law. Therefore demand of Rs. 5,39,775/- is confirmed. 5. Looking to the manner in which adjudication has travelled and time has also been crossed due to difference in the decisions of the Tribunal, there shall not be levy of penalty on the appellant in respect of duty demand of Rs. 5,39,775/-. Upon re-adjudication, penalty if any leviable against demand of Rs. 11,88,368/- shall be c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
