TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial based on which the MRP was declared to the Department. Therefore, the findings of the lower authorities holding that there was mis-declaration on the part of the appellant is acceptable - the appellant is not eligible for the benefit as claimed in terms of Section 4A of the CEA, 1944 - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/1775/2009-EX(DB) - A/52251/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 7-3-2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd Ms. Rinky Arora, ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri G.R. Singh, ld. D.R. 4. It is the submission of Ms. Rinky Arora, ld. Advocate that the commodity thinner was clearly covered by notification issued under Section 4A. The appellants were declaring from time to time that they were clearing thinner in 210 ltr. packings and claiming the discount of 40% in terms of Notification No.13/2002 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 1.3.2002. The Department during the course of audit discovered that no MRP being declared on the packages and that in respect of these items, the valuation under Section 4A was not applicable and held that the declarations filed by the appellant were clearly wrong and involved mis-statement of facts and accordingly, invoking extended period of limitation, demanded duty of ₹ 9,88,225/- alon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mission that once cum duty price is adopted, the duty demand should be lower than confirmed is acceptable. 8. From the record, it also appears that the Commissioner (Appeals) has already granted the partial relief in para 8 of the impugned order regarding the calculation of the differential duty. The value of thinker should be treated as cum duty price as it has been held by the Hon ble Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
