TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding on Commissioner. Thus, the impugned order is being in violation of Tribunal order is set aside. Non confirmation of the interest - Held that:- Since, impugned order has been set aside for the re-quantification, the matter regarding interest will be decided a fresh by the lower authority. Adjustment of outstanding - Held that:- The same requires reexamination as the total clearances/ sales have to be re-quantified and the duty liability re-calculated after re-quantification of the sales value arrived at on the basis of computerized sales register. Matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh adjudication order - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. E/41/2010-DB, E/1735/2009 - A/10175-10176/2019 - Dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Bill Amount OPEAK T.R. 12% Tax Transport Truck No. 1 01/04/99 1 KEDIA CERAMICS TILES PVT. LTD 88750.00 72000.00 8640.0 8110.00 GJ-2 T-9798 2 04/04/99 2 DBBP CERAMIC INDUSTRIES 88750.00 72000.00 8640.0 8110.00 GJ-2-5872 3 04/04/99 3 SOMPURA TILES PVT. LTD 88750.00 72000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AK - 5405400.00 T.R - 483000.00 12% TAX - 706608.00 TRANSPORT - 627242.00 _________ TOTAL 14444500.00 3. He pointed out that the first column is the serial number, the second column is date, the third column is bill number, the forth column is the name of the buyer, the fifth column is the total bill amount, the 6 and 7 column are the value of the two materials sold by them i.e. Opeak and transparent, the 8 column is the tax col ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue had not in challenged the same before any superior Court. He pointed out that in these circumstances the said decision of Tribunal become final. He argued that the Commissioner has ignored the said findings of the Tribunal and not followed the remand order by observing that the remand order is incorrect on amount of following reasons. 1. The parties Ledger shows sale of 1.55 crore and therefore, the amount shown in the computerized sale record and clandestine clearances of 1.44 crore is correct. Ld. Counsel argued that this assertion in incorrect as the Ledger which shows clearance of 1.55 crore is obviously not related to the clandestine clearances and therefore cannot be compared with the computerized sales record which relates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the said sale register for the year 1999-2000, sh. Dave submits that the total clearances shown in the said register was to the tune of ₹ 72,22,250/-.The said sale was further shown in the computer printout as bifurcated in respect of two varieties i.e. OPEAK and TR. Transportation charges were separately shown and 12% tax was also shown separately. He submits that if the total of the sales of two varieties and along with tax and transportation charge is taken into consideration, the same would amount to ₹ 72,22,250/-, which figure is separately shown as total sale in the said computer print. However, the commissioner instead of taking the total sale as ₹ 72,22,250/-, has erroneously taken the sum total of all the figu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
