9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (11) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tant Collector while rejecting the refund claim of the present respondents had held that in arriving at the assessable value of the goods in question deduction could be allowed only of the amount of duty calculated with reference to the exempted rate of duty and not at the statutory rate otherwise leviable but for the exemption. The Collector (Appeals), however, found that respondents had realised from their customers only the gross value of the goods as agreed to between them and did not realise any extra amount as Central Excise duty. He, therefore, held that as they had paid such excise duty in excess to which the refund claim related, there was no justification for the Assistant Collector to take into consideration the gross value of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llector had also not held that such recovery had been made. He, however, took us through the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Collector particularly paragraphs 8 and 9 thereof where the method for arriving at the assessable value from the cum-duty price had been considered by the Assistant Collector. Shri Srivastava, learned DR submitted that, as stated by the Assistant Collector in his order, the amount that would qualify for abatement from cum-duty value will only be the duty based on the effective rate of duty leviable on the goods in question after taking into account the exemption available. He, however, admitted that the Assistant Collector should have applied the concessional rate of duty of 5%, at which rate, duty had been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to an untenable finding. The total sale price realised by the respondent is seen from the invoices and the duty actually paid is available on the Gate Passes. Unless there is evidence to show that the respondent recovered duty separately from the customers and thereby received more amounts from them than what were shown in the respective invoices, it will not be permissible to reject the contention raised by the respondent that the invoice price was not ex-duty but cum duty. This is the view taken by Collector (Appeals) in his order. He had found the claim of refund for Rs. 7,304.12 made by the present respondent to be admissible and allowed the appeal with the direction to the Assistant Collector to grant the refund claim for Rs. 7,304.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
