9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (9) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent]. Order-in-Original dated 31-8-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad confirming duty demand to the extent of Rs. 4,10,393.47 and imposing penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- is under challenge in this appeal. 2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of figured glass falling under erstwhile Tariff Item 23A, was paying duty on the basis of approved assessable value. 3. The di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cceeded in part as a result of which original demand of Rs. 33,65,568.23 was reduced to Rs. 4,10,393.47. This demand is relatable to the three heads. 4. The major part of the demand has arisen on the basis of allegation that the appellant received higher amount by way of price from ten buyers situated in North India during the period in question. Appellant contended before the adjudicating autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rectors of the appellant were unable to do so. This led the adjudicating authority to believe that such correlation is not possible and therefore amounts referred to above had been received as extra consideration in respect of the clearances during the particular period. This finding and approach underlying the facts are challenged by the appellant. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant took us t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e but payment and invoices over a period. If such exercise is conducted, it will be possible to have a clear idea as to whether there were extra payments or not. In our view, the matter deserves to be examined afresh in the light of what we have indicated and the method already suggested. 6. Another dispute relates to the includibility of the assessable value of commission received by the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
