TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant to imposition of one under Rule 173Q. Ld. Commissioner lost sight of this distinction. This error also can be corrected by him. Matter remanded for the limited purpose of re-quantification of the demand of duty on the basis of the assessee's worksheet - appeal allowed by way of remand. - - - - - Dated:- 11-7-2007 - P. G. Chacko (Judicial Member) ORDER P. G. Chacko (Judicial Member) 1. One of these appeals is by the assessee (100% EOU) and the other by the Revenue, both against an order of the Commissioner. In the impugned order, ld. Commissioner demanded duty of ₹ 10,85,732/-from the assessee for the period October 1994 to June 1999 in adjudication of a show-cause notice dated 10.6.99. He also confiscated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Manager of the company indicated collection of extra amounts by the assessee from their buyers. The above statements also indicated that the assessee had procured raw materials duty-free and diverted the same without payment of duty. On the basis of the investigative results, the Department issued a show-cause notice invoking larger period of limitation and demanding differential duty of over ₹ 29.59 lakhs from the assessee, and proposing penalties on them under Section 11AC of the Act and under the Central Excise Rules, The demand was contested. The impugned order was passed in adjudication of this dispute. 3. After perusal of some of the relevant invoices, under which the subject clearances were made during the period of disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal and has prayed for vacating the penalty. Ld. SDR has reiterated the grievance of the Revenue, which is against grant of the benefit of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) to the assessee. That, in cases of this nature, the sale price of the goods should be treated as cum-duty price and abatement of duty from such price should be allowed in determination of assessable value is a legal position well-settled by now and the same is no longer amenable to challenge. Hence, at the outset, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 4. It appears that ld. Commissioner demanded a higher amount of duty even after accepting the assessee's worksheet wherein an amount of ₹ 9,00,760.63 was mentioned as outstanding duty. No amount of duty over and above the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
