9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... njan, Additional Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeal is arising out of impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 17-18/CE/ALLD/2010 dated 29/01/2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Asbestos Cement Products Classifiable under Chapter 68 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal Authority invoked the provisions of Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. However, he has ordered the appellants to pay differential duty of Rs. 3,11,285/-. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The contention of the appellants before Commissioner (Appeals) was that in certain cases, whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les in respect of all the transactions. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. Heard the ld. Counsel for the appellant, who has submitted that it is undisputed that the Provisional Assessment was ordered for want of data on cost of transportation, which is requirement of Rule 5 of the said Rules. The information related to transaction at Depots & Consignment Agents was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... want of data on cost of transportation subsequently Revenue cannot change its stand and order finalization of assessment by invoking the said Rule 7. We, therefore, hold that the impugned Order-in-Appeal is not sustainable. We find that the issue is required to go back to the Original Authority for re-calculation of duty. Therefore, we remand the matter back to the Original Authority with a direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
