TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he arguments given in the Order-in-Original for revising the MRP, it shows that there are lot of assumption and presumption involved and it is highly arbitrary - impugned order cannot be upheld - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/331 & 332/2010 - A/86446-86447/2018 - Dated:- 17-5-2018 - SHRI RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And SHRI RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Bhushan Jani, C.A. for Appellant Shri M.R. Melvin, Supdt. (AR) for Respondent Per: Raju These appeals have been filed by M/s Alps Container Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Mukesh Tejura against confirmation of demand and imposition of penalties. 2. M/s Alps Container Pvt. Ltd. (ACPL in short) entered into an agreement with M/s Mascot Intention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of identical goods, where assessable value had been arrived at ₹ 23/. Demand was correctly raised adopting the MRP declared for the purpose of export as MRP for domestic clearance. The demand was confirmed by the original adjudicating authority and equal penalty was also imposed. While confirming the demand, however, the original adjudicating authority adopted a new method for arriving at the assessable value. The argument adopted for revising the assessable value was as follows:- Having considered all the factors, I proceed to determine the RSP in this case. Accordingly, presuming at least two intermediate persons i.e. some wholesale dealer and retailer before reaching the toothpaste to the ultimate consumer and presuming the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to him to adopt different method. He further argued that the method adopted by the original adjudicating authority is arbitrary, notional and based on presumption. 4. Learned AR relied on the impugned order. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We find that the show-cause notice proposed assessment on the basis of MRP ascertained on the strength of the statement of the Director of the company. The said method was not found proper by original adjudicating authority, who devised his own method of ascertaining MRP, A perusal of the arguments given in the Order-in-Original for revising the MRP shows that there are lot of assumption and presumption involved and it is highly arbitrary. Having rejected the ground taken in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
