9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erroneous and misguided and misconstrued, to such an extent that it was unsubstantiated wild allegation - The applications which were made by the department are misconstrued and were baseless as from random sample which had been taken up for verification. The assessee had indicated the quantitative discount on which no excise duty had been paid and cleared by them during the relevant period, and intimated the department - The downloaded pages from CBEC site, also indicate that the quantitative discounts were feeded in by the appellant during relevant period - before filing such an application, it was imperative on the part of the senior officers to verify the claims of the field formation, regarding such a serious allegation, as to manipulation of the returns that were filed before the Tribunal - the senior officers should have viewed, vetted the entire issue in a proper perspective and should have first understood the implication before filing the applications before the Tribunal - Decided against Revenue. Initiating Enquiry - Jurisdictional Commissioner was directed to initiate an enquiry to fix the responsibility and take appropriate action against the erring officers who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e lower authorities and there is nothing on record to show that the lower authorities had sought clarification from the assessee as regards the quantity cleared under quantitative discount without payment by them. In the absence of such correspondence, we find that the adjudicating authority has erred in holding against the assessee on limitation................ " It is submitted that the assessee has misrepresented the facts before Honble CESTAT as the ER-1 returns filed by the assessee before the Range officer, who is proper officer to scrutinize the ER-1 returns, did not contain any details of quantity of P P medicaments cleared without payment of duty under quantitative discount. The factual report received from the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner under his letter F.No.v/16-19/Misc-Review/2011 dated 30.01.2012 reveals that Hon ble CESTAT has been misled by the assessee by putting for the wrong/fabricated facts. In fact the ER-1 returns filed by the assessee with the department only had below mentioned columns showing details of the manufacture' clearance and duty payable as elaborated below for convenience and better understanding the facts of the case. Sr.N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above, ld. D.R. would draw our attention to the original documents of ER-1 submitted by the assessee to the range office. He would submit that there is no mention of the quantitative discounts in the returns filed by the assessee before the departmental authorities. He would submit that the returns which were produced before the Tribunal were manipulated to suit to the purposes of the assessee. 7. Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would draw our attention to the various returns filed by them and produced before the Tribunal. He would draw our attention specifically to their ER-1 returns filed by them with the authorities and indicate that there was a quantitative discount mentioned in the ER-1 returns. It is his submission that the appellant has been following the procedure of mentioning the quantitative discount in the ER-1 returns prior to and post the period involved in these cases. In support of that he would draw our attention to the various returns filed by them during the period 2003-04 and also 2005-08. He would also submit that during the period, there was a trade notice of the Central Board of Excise Customs, directing trade to submit the details of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fice of the Central Excise Customs, Daman on 28.6.05 vide trade notice No.19/05 dated 28.06.05 has directed the trade as under: 12. In response to such a direction, the appellant herein filed various ER-1 returns from the period June 2005 to September 2005 online, in addition to the monthly ER-1 returns filed by them with the range office. 13. We take up a random case in the E/ROA/902/12 for the month of September 2005. In the September 2005 returns filed by the assessee before the authorities, in the 1st page, there is a quantitative discount shown as 61,645 in respect of P or P medicaments. It is the Revenue s case that this particular discount was not shown in the monthly returns submitted by the assessee to the Revenue. In support of which ER-1 returns attached with all ROA was brought to our notice. On perusal of the said ER-1 returns as filed by the assessee, we find that there is a mention of quantitative discount at the same time, we do find that the ER-1 returns which were produced by the departmental representative for the same month nothing is indicated as quantitative discount. We find that the online submissions made by the assessee for the month of September 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
