TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neously, it is observed that Department is not disputing that the duty determined for the entire year 2013-14 was Rs.16,30,42,152.80/- and after final assessment it comes to Rs.16,40,82,902/-. Since there is no denial that instead of the duty amount of Rs. 16,30,43,152.80/- amount of Rs. 16,39,81,197.10/- stands already paid i.e. an amount of Rs.9,38,044.30/- stands already paid in excess by the appellant in Appeal No. 50866 of 2021 and an amount of Rs.47,479/- stands paid in excess in appeal no. 50867 of 2021. Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the said excess payment to have already been made by the appellant and to adjust the same in the differential duty demand of Rs.10,39,750/- in appeal no. 50866 of 2021. In view there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factory to various branches on provisional assessment basis. After the stock transfer of their finished goods to their branches the appellants requested for finalization of the provisional assessment. The request was accepted vide the adjudicating order no. 11/2014-15 dated 20.11.2015. However, Department observed that the appellant has irregularly availed the facility of provisional assessment on the goods which were not used for further manufacture of excisable goods but cleared to its branch office for research and development outside the factory of production and as free samples. While forming an opinion that in the given circumstances the appellant was not entitled to invoke the provisions of Rule 7 and even Rule 8 of Central Excise V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for the appellant Mr. Mahesh Bharadwaj, Authorised Representative for the Department. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has mentioned that both the appeals have been filed praying for setting aside of the impugned Order-in-Appeal on following technical grounds: (i) During the pendency of the adjudication of impugned show cause notice the appellant has applied under Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Redressal Scheme. The outcome was not finalized but the Adjudicating Authority without waiting for the said outcome has passed the impugned order. It is submitted that Commissioner (Appeals) was not competent to pass the order during the pendency of the appellant s application before the Department for the finalization of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 9,38,044.30/-. No objection is expressed for setting off the said amount against the differential duty being confirmed and ordered to be recovered vide the order under challenge. However, both the technical grounds raised by the appellant are heavily objected to not to be applicable in the given set of circumstances. Both the appeals are accordingly prayed to be disposed of. 7. After hearing both the parties and perusing the records it is observed that the appellant has no grievance as far as the computation of duty at the time of final assessment of his goods in terms of Rule 11 read with Rule 4 of Valuation Rules instead of Rule 8, thereof. There is no grievance but admission for the differential duty for entire year of 2013-14 to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s concerned. 9. Coming to the technical issues raised with respect to both the appeals, it is held that in the entire scheme of SVLDRS announced vide Finance Act, 2019 there is found no provision requiring the stay of pending proceedings before the Department/Courts/Tribunals during the consideration of the application, if any, filed under SVLDRS Scheme. In absence of such provision, I do not find any merit in the technical argument objecting the competence of Commissioner (Appeals) to adjudicate the appeals during the pendency of the SVLDRS application of the appellant. Similarly, with respect to the time-bar issue as mentioned in Circular No. 1053/2/2017, it is observed that the relevant para 14.10 of said circular reads as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2021 since has a calculation error as discussed above, the order of said appeal is hereby set aside holding that the only liability of the appellant is to pay an amount of Rs.1,01,705.70/- instead of Rs.10,39,750/- as has been confirmed and ordered to be recovered by Commissioner (Appeals). The order-in-appeal w.r.t. appeal no. 50866 of 2021 accordingly is set aside. As far as Appeal No. 50867 of 2021 is concerned since admittedly the calculation error as that of Appeal No. 50866 of 2021 has not occurred in the present appeal, the excess duty paid of Rs.47,479/- has been adjusted in the total demand of Rs.2,04,258/-. No question arises for setting aside the impugned order with respect to Appeal No. 50867 of 2021. 12. As a result of e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
