9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ving at the landed cost of materials from the place of procurement at Goa to Dharwad. According to the original adjudicating authority, this should have been made clear in the revised CA certificate dated 18.1.2006 in token of having verified earlier certificates - according to the Revenue the CA certificate dated 18.1.2006 revises the CA certificate issued in 1997. According to Revenue this means that even CA certificate did not have the supporting documents while issuing the certificate in 1997. Again there is no discussion so as to what was the original certificate and what is the revised certificate and on what basis this conclusion has been reached - no grounds have been made out by the Revenue to support the appeal against the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e earlier two occasions, the appeal had been remanded for verification of CA certificate produced by the respondent and its specific direction to verify certain aspects. Finally the Commissioner (A) in the impugned order has accepted the prices declared by the respondent and has set aside the orders confirming the demand. 3. Nobody is present on behalf of the respondent. Heard learned AR who reiterates the grounds taken by the Committee for reviewing order. 4. We have considered the submissions and also the grounds taken in the appeal memorandum. It has been submitted that the assessee had many suppliers situated in different places. But for calculation of assessable value, the assessee has taken the invoice of a single supplier. Theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oice of single supplier when the Commissioner (A) himself has seen 5 invoices and has made specific observation on those invoices giving details of the same and from the finding of the original adjudicating authority, it is surprising that in the appeal memorandum the Committee observed that the assessee has taken a single invoice as basis. Apparently, the submissions in the appeal memorandum are not based on facts. Similarly the conclusion of the original adjudicating authority is also not based on facts. Further the Commissioner (A) has also observed that after considering the CA certificate that no specific infirmity would be found by him. He also observed that the adjudicating authority should have shown that the standard costing method ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
