9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of polyester filament yarn. Between 16th March, 1995 and 16th June, 1995, the duty on this product was leviable on a tariff value determined under Section 3(2) of the Act, Rs. 98/- per kg. The notification fixing a tariff value was withdrawn with effect from 16th June, 1995. The appellant thereafter cleared the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act that the value was lower than the tariff value that was earlier fixed is entirely insufficient on which the demand for duty was based. The departmental representative relies upon the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellant had not filed price declaration, or furnished the pattern of sale. 4. We fail to see how this impinges on the issue of value. In point of fact, Rule 173C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er for short levy to be successfully established, it has to be shown that the value on which the appellant paid duty was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 4. The Commissioner does say that the appellant had earlier cleared the goods at a slightly higher price of Rs. 103/- and Rs. 104/- in 1995. This does not mean that the appellant could not sell its goods at a lower price later. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mes to come. The tariff value that was notified in March, 1995 of Rs. 98/- was done away in June, 1995. It obviously cannot have any relevance to the market situation a year later. The department does not allege that the price at which the appellant cleared the goods was not the one and lower price. There is therefore no case made out by the department. 6. The appeals are allowed and the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
