9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 895X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decide after considering the facts and law of the case including the case laws cited by both the sides. 2. The Ld Advocate on behalf of the applicant submits that on the identical issue for the earlier period, the Tribunal in their own case by Final Order NO A/1232/2015 dtd 24.8.2015 allowed appeal filed by the applicant and set aside the impugned order. He submits the factual aspects of the present period and the earlier period are identical and therefore there is no reason to remand this matter and the appeal should be allowed by the Tribunal. In this context, the Ld Advocate submits that Para 9.4.1 of the earlier impugned order and the present impugned order are similar and word-to-word same. He submits that it is well settled by the v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he other hand, the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority. He submits that there is no finding of the adjudicating authority on the sell of the goods to the independent buyers and therefore, the said case law would not be applicable in the present case. 4. We find from the impugned order that Shri Yadagiri R. Avadhoot, Manager-cum-Authorised Signatory of the appellant Company, in his statement dated 24.02.2014 stated that they have cleared the goods to the independent buyers also they have transferred the goods on payment of duty to their sister units on the transaction value of the independent buyer. It is seen that the appellant also placed the decision of the Larger Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15, of the Tribunal, we find that in the present appeal, there was a factual dispute on the independent sale to the buyers. The Tribunal categorically recorded that the Adjudicating Authority had not given any finding on the facts and law of the case. The Ld Advocate appeared on behalf of the applicant also submitted that the part of the demand is after the amendment of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules and therefore they are liable to pay duty after the amendment. In this perspective, the Tribunal remanded the matter to examine the whole issue. We do not find such findings in the earlier order of the Tribunal. So, there is no force in the submission of the Ld Advocate. 7. Hence, the application filed by the applicant for rectification of mist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
