9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER PER BENCH The appellants are manufacturers of industrial valves, spares for valves etc. Pursuant to scrutiny of records by departmental officers, it emerged that some customers had paid excess amount than the actual purchase value; that such excess payment was not adjusted in subsequent years; that in the trial balance, the appellant had shown excess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld the demand along with interest and imposed equal penalty under Rule 25 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel V.S. Manoj submitted that (i) in the event of supply of the goods beyond the agreed delivery date, the custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arges bringing the total billed amount to Rs. 2,10,000.27. However, the customer had paid them only Rs. 1,88,478/- initially which entered into the books of accounts and subsequently at the end of November 2005, doubtful payment of Rs. 21,530.27 was made. Subsequently, the customer paid part amount of Rs. 17,776/- on 31.3.2010 and which was shown in the Miscellaneous Income. 3. On the other hand, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allegation that the appellants have not discharged the total duty liability that was required to be paid at the time of clearance of the goods. In the circumstances, we find that the allegation of short-payment of duty is unjustified. This being so, the impugned order cannot sustain and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
