9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... May, 2017 dismissed the petitioner's appeal from the order in original dated 18th January, 2006 of the Commissioner of Central Excise under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (Act). 3. At the very outset, we noticed that the impugned order is dated 16th May, 2017 and the petition is filed in this Court only on 6th December, 2018. Thus, we were prima facie of the view that the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay alone. In response, the petitioner states there is no delay as the petitioner was prosecuting its challenge to the impugned order dated 16th May, 2017 ever since its receipt. This by filing an appeal under Section 35G of the Act before the Court. However, it was withdrawn on 9th October, 2018 with liberty to take such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, appellant denies the same. 1.2 Appellants submit that duty has already been paid on these debit notes amounts without any dispute that duty is not payable (page No.31) thereon. Therefore, there is no more necessity to determine the assessability and duty liability on these amounts for inclusion in the assessable value. In view such admitted position and the expenses of product development having been made by appellant which has direct nexus to manufacture, Revenue's contention that duty is leviable on the above amounts is correct and to this extent, we dismiss the appeal against the manufacturer appellant, M/s. ISMT Ltd. on this count." 7. Normally facts of what transpired in Court such as submissions made as recorded in the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, it follows that duty liability is admitted. This is contrary to the view of this very bench of the Tribunal in its order dated 17th April, 2017 in respect of the same petitioner wherein it had categorically held that "Mere payment of duty by litigant does not prevent it from contesting the said duty paid against arise of liability. There should not be a misconception that when the duty liability was discharged, liability was admitted by the assessee." Thus, it could not have taken a contrary view on a principle without explaining the context which would justify a different view in the present facts. 10. In the above view, we set aside the impugned order dated 16th May, 2017 to the extent it relates to the petitioner and restore it to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
