9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hnappa, the learned JDR for the Revenue. 3. The learned Advocate pointed out several mistakes, which according to the appellants, are mistakes apparent on the face of the record. We shall deal with each of them seriatum and give our findings. (1) In para 10 of the Final Order, the Tribunal has confirmed the demand for duty of Rs. 1,85,916/- in respect of excess freight collected. This decision is contrary to the ratio laid by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Baroda Electric Meter - 1997 (94) E.L.T. 13. (S.C.). Therefore, the following prayer is made to modify the Final Order by - (a) setting aside the demand in view of the ratio of the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Baroda Electric Meter, and (b) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant is rejected. (2) The advocate stated that in para 12 of the impugned order, there is a typographical error. It was stated that the word not has been omitted after the word are in the following sentence - The appellants have cited large number of case laws to hold that they are includible in the assessable value. Finding : The prayer of the appellant is granted. The above sentence should be read as follows :- The appellants have cited large number of case laws to hold that they are not includible in the assessable value. (3) The appellants have cited the following extract from para 11 of the Final Order. As we have already confirmed the finding of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing. (d) It was vehemently contended that the difference in price to the dealer and price of the dealer to buyers which represents the profit to dealer is normal business profit. Hence the finding that the department should adopt the price to independent buyer to re-determine the duty liability is a finding, which is beyond the scope of show cause notice, which requires rectification. It has further been stated that the request of the appellant to take into account the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. [2002 (141) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] has not been considered while ordering re-quantification of duty by treating the price of the dealer as cum-duty price. It has further been stated that if t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not very clear as to how the Commissioner arrived at the differential duty of Rs. 10,80,114/- confirmed by him. In fact, by ordering re-quantification, we have kept the issue open. As regards the request for taking into account the decision of Supreme Court in M/s. Maruti Udyog case is concerned, this point has not been considered in the Final Order. Therefore, the following sentence can be inserted in para 11 of the Final Order after the above-mentioned sentence. While calculating the above differential duty, the Commissioner shall take the prices to be cum duty-price in terms of the Apex Court judgment in M/s. Maruti Udyog case. Hence, in para 12, the following sentence can be deleted : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
