9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m their three factories, on account of post-removal expenses viz. Commission to agents, bank charges and freight and insurance charges in order to arrive at the assessable value of goods for purpose of assessment to duty were disallowed (the deduction on account of bonus to dealers was allowed on actual and penalties were reduced by the Tribunal). 2. According to the applicants, the errors apparent from the face of the record arose in not considering the following :- (a) the submissions that decision dated 9-1-97 of the Apex Court dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue against the Bombay High Court judgment dated 19-7-91 by which abatement towards agency commission was allowed in their own case operates res judicata even it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account and also noting that prices were Ex-Works Free On Road and transportation charges are on account of buyers as per Sales Policy. The Tribunal also noted that the applicants have not produced any evidence to the effect that their prices included bank charges. Therefore, on the 2nd and 3rd issues raised in these applications, there is no error in the final order. On these three issues, the applicants actually seek to re-argue the appeals, which is not permissible and which is beyond the scope of ROM, in the light of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Dwarka Pesant, AIR 1999 SC 1037 and 2003 (151) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) in the case of CCE, Calcutta v. A.S.C.U Ltd. wherein it has been held that only a glaring mistake can be said to be o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Appeal No. E/3850/2001 wherein the notice of demand was issued on 12-6-2000 for the period June, 1997 to December, 1999 is sustainable only within the normal period of limitation. The demand in Appeal No. E/43/2002 for the Thane factory is entirely within the period of six months period of limitation and therefore, the argument on time-bar is irrelevant for this appeal. We set aside the levy of interest under Section 11AB and imposition of penalty under Section 11AC in Appeal No. 2449/99 and Appeal No. E/3850/2001 as a result of our finding on time-bar. The demands in these two cases are to be re-computed. We also set aside the denial of deemed credit of Rs. 77,23,778/- in Appeal No. E/43/2002 [Deemed Credit has been denied as per para 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
