9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority. That authority directed the original authority to finalise the assessment of the subject clearances on the basis of final prices to be declared by the assessee. The Revenue s challenge against the remand order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is contained in Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the grounds of appeal , which are extracted below :- 7. The Commissioner (Appeals) while setting aside the above Order-in-Appeal No. 52/2004 (SCN) (TRY - III), dated 16-3-2004 once again confirmed his stand in his earlier Order-in-Appeal No. 503/2004 (TRY) (SCN), dated 22-10-2003 and held that the provisional assessment were to continue and the assessee are eligible for refund based on the revised reduced provisional prices. In the above Order-in-Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithdrawal of their arbitration petitions filed against the Oil Companies against the price-revision. The provisional assessment could be considered for finalisation only on production of the above-mentioned evidences by the assessee. The directions of the Commissioner (Appeals) to finalise the provisional assessment in the absence of these evidences is thus not legal and proper. Ld. SDR has reiterated the above grounds. Ld. Consultant for the respondents has submitted that they have no grievance against of the direction of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the original authority. 3.After considering the submissions, we find that the appellate authority has directed the original authority to finalise the assessment. The provisional nature o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisional prices fixed by the Oil Companies at the time of clearance of goods. The appellants are at liberty to approach the lower authority for refund if any as per law. The Revenue s grievance in the instant appeal is that the direction given by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order to the original authority is not in keeping with the above view taken by him in Order-in-Appeal No. 503/2003. We find that both the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) pertain to the same goods. One relates to assessment and other relates to consequential refund. Now that it stands established that the assessment made at the time of clearance of the goods was only provisional and that the original authority has been directed to finalise it, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
