9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Mrs. Janaki Arun Kumar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Ashtana, Member (T)]. - In this appeal against order-in-appeal No. 91/87(BM), dated 27-8-1987 passed by Collector (Appeals), the order-in-original dated 30-1-1987 passed by Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Bellary has been upheld but the same is assailed before us. 2. Heard ld. Advocate for appellants who submits th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to charging duty on duty. 3. Ld. DR on the other hand submits that the exemption nowhere specifically states that it is in the nature of an incentive and authorising that difference between the rate of duty mentioned therein and the tariff rates was available and could be pocketed by the manufacturer. It is a plain exemption notification granting lower rates of duty on the basis of slab qua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order-in-original it has already been adjudicated that first show cause notice for the period from April, 1977 to July, 1977 but dated 3-6-1978 would be time barred for a period beyond one year from the date of issue of notice in terms of then Rule 10 ibid. Ld. DR submits that said relief has already been given. Therefore the order is correct in law. 4. We have carefully considered the rival ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, the declared assessable value was not the correct assessable value and needed to be enhanced with respect to the additional consideration received by them. This additional consideration was the difference between the duty actually debited to Govt. in terms of the said exemption notification and the higher amount collected as duty from their buyers as per the tariff rates. We do not find any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
