TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1850X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ences raised by the appellant are to be considered by the adjudicating authority in true spirits and after considering the explanations and chart given by the appellant. As, the adjudicating authority was required to give due consideration of the records produced by the appellant but the same has not been given, in that circumstances, the impugned order deserves de-merits, therefore, the same is to be set aside. The matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for consideration the grievance raised by the appellant - Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. E/60776,60777,60778/2013 - Final Order No-56414-56416/2016 - Dated:- 2-12-2016 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Ashok K. Arya, Member (Technical) S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considering the statement made by the appellants, the impugned order has been passed. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellants are before us. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the demand pertains to the period December, 1998 to 02.06.2003. In remand proceedings, the Ld. Commissioner has treated the value determined as cum duty or inclusive duty payable by the appellant by reducing the value. It is his submissions that while re-determining duty, the commissioner has not accepted the plea of the appellant that the duty demand against them could only be demanded on the quantities mentioned in the challans on the basis of which the goods were cleared to M/s Naveen Electricals (a proprietary firm which was owned by Shri N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etermining of the assessable value the price list of previous years has not been considered. Therefore, while calculating the duty demand up to the year 2000, the discounts of 60% was allowed. However, for the subsequent period the discount is allowed of 50%. Whereas, in his initial statement, it is categorically stated that from the year, 2001 onwards they were giving 55% to 65% discount. He also submits that sometimes they used to give discount of 65% to 75% also. In that circumstances, the discount is to be granted for whole of the period uniformly. 8. He further submits that during the course of adjudication, the appellant produced different charts pointed out various mistakes in calculating the duty demand and the same has not been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
