9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they neither took the registration nor paid any excise duty. Based on an intelligence, various places of the assessee were searched on 22nd September 2002 and certain incriminating documents were recovered. Based upon the investigation, a demand notice was issued on 1st October 2003 demanding duty amounting to Rs. 13,77,397/-, interest and penalties. The case was adjudicated wherein the original authority confirmed the demand of duty, interest and penalties. The assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide his order dated 18-3-2005 reduced the demand to Rs. 2,70,652/- and equal amount of penalty and interest. The Revenue is in appeal against the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) against the reduction of duty, inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the range of Rs. 325/- to Rs. 375/-, which was also confirmed by their buyers, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have taken the average of the same, i.e. Rs. 350/- and arrived at the tariff value as 60% of Rs. 350/- and thereafter the total assessable value and duty liability. We, therefore, set aside this part of the impugned order and remand the matter to the original authority to recompute the value of the goods cleared based upon the MRP of Rs. 350/- per piece. 3.2 The second issue is relating to return of certain goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has found that the assessee was able to produce various lorry receipts and delivery challans etc. to prove that the goods with an assessable value of Rs. 15,21,085/- were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, this argument of the learned counsel does not hold water. However, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has extended the benefit in respect of specific kachcha and pacca bills which were both of the same date and having the same quantity and value. There is no evidence brought by the Revenue that the assessee has cleared twice the same goods on the same date or cleared twice the quantity. Under the circumstances, we hold that the assessee would be entitled of reduction in the quantity/value in respect of the invoices mentioned in the impugned order, i.e. quantity of garments cleared will require to be reduced from 88613 to 84050 pieces. 3.4 As far as invocation of extended period and penalty under Section 11AC are c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
