TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeal of the appellant on time-bar whereas the fact of the matter is that the assessee has filed the appeal against the letter dated 25.04.2017 refusing to correct the mistake committed by the Department. Once the Department has accepted the mistake then it was the bounded duty of the Department to correct the calculation error, refusal to do so is not tenable under law. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/21797/2017-SM - Final Order No. 20462 2018 - Dated:- 27-3-2018 - Mr. S.S Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Shyam Narayan, Advocate - For the Appellant Mr. Madhupsharan, Assistant Commissioner (AR) - For the Respondent ORDER Per : SS Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2012 and dropped the demand for the extended period as time-barred. However there was a calculation error in the confirmed demand of ₹ 31,66,323/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty Three only) as the Department had calculated the rate of duty @12.36% ad-valorem in respect of invoices pertaining to the period from January 2012 to 01.03.2012 instead of applicable duty @10.30% ad-valorem. As far as interest is concerned, it was held that no interest is payable. Aggrieved by the dropping of the demand of interest, the Department filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the appellate authority vide his order dated 30.03.2017 upheld the Department's appeal and hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r submitted that the appellant paid the interest also. He further submitted that this computation error was brought to the notice of the Department at every stage but the Department has admitted the error but refused to correct the same. He further submitted that the present appeal has been filed against the letter dated 25.04.2017 rejecting the request of the appellant to correct the mistake committed by the Department. He further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly taken the date of the original impugned order as 24.03,2014 and rejected the appeal on time-bar. 4. On the other hand the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
