9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 772X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. As per facts on record, the respondents are engaged in manufacture of V Belts. They were clearing the same on payment of duty on the basis of transaction value. In respect of 3 invoices, they adopted less transaction valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- was imposed upon Shri S.R. Kalra, Partner of the company and Rs. 10,000/- on Shri D.U. Malani, Excise Incharge cum authorized signatory. The said order was appealed against by the respondent before Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the same. For better appreciation, the relevant paragraph from the impugned order is reproduced below. "6. The issue involved in the instant case is under- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ared/sold, is the correct transaction value in terms of Section 4(1)(a) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and accordingly duty has been paid by the appellant. Therefore, the lower authority's impugned order-in-original demanding duty of Rs. 78,152/- is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside. Similarly, when the demand is not sustainable, there does not arise any question of imposing penalty and de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under-valuation and the differential amount stand received by the respondent. There is no such allegation much less any evidence on record to reflect upon the flow back of money from the buyers to the respondents. As such, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that inasmuch as the transaction value is the assessable value for the purpose of payment of duty and there being no evidence to ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
