TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1095X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to look into the computational error and simply responded by asking for recovery of adjudged amount. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) “upholding the impugned order in original and rejecting the appeal” in toto appears to be erroneous - matter needs to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/603/2009 - Final Order No. 61990/2017 - Dated:- 13-10-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Ms. Nidhi Dhamija, CA for the Appellant(s) Sh. G.M. Sharma, AR for the Respondent(s) ORDER The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are clearing c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utation for finalization of the provisional assessment further asked the appellants to justify the basis of their final assessment. After submission of the appellants reply, the assessment was finalized. At the time of finalization, deductions claimed on provisional basis were varied and consequently the assessable value changed and duty amount payable also changed. It was the case of the appellant that the assessable value of the goods should be ₹ 95.97 crores and duty payable should be ₹ 15.66 crores and that they have already paid a sum of ₹ 15.76 crores as duty. The original authority held that the revised assessable value is ₹ 97.76 crores (approximately) and the duty payable is ₹ 15.95 crores (approximat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty actually paid by them was ₹ 15,76,79,154/- and not ₹ 13,87,96,831/-, he has not come to any conclusion but referred the matter to the original authority to determine the same. We also find that despite the direction of Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), the Department has not entertained the request of the appellants to look into the computational error and simply responded by asking for recovery of adjudged amount. Under these circumstances, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the impugned order in original and rejecting the appeal in toto appears to be erroneous. 9. In these circumstances, we find that the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is required to be set aside and matter needs to be remanded to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
