9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the records and the impugned order, we find that the Assistant Commissioner, Tuticorin by letter dated 15.4.1999 ordered for provisional assessment and also directed to execute a bond as required under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant had not executed the bond as required under the said Rule and therefore there was no provisional assessment. We agree with the finding of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through the consignment agents at different places. Four show-cause notices were issued proposing demand of duty of Rs.20,27,538/- for the period from September 1997 to August 1999, Rs.2,84,121/- for the period from November 1999 December 1999, Rs.2,34,292/- for the period from May June 2000 and Rs.2,16,720/- for the period July 2000 to October 200 on the ground that the appellants adopted a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e value, the original authority should have adjusted the refund of duty paid on higher assessable value. He further submits that the appellant requested for provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 which was not acceded to by the original authority. It is further submitted that the original authority had adopted different yardsticks for refund and demand of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al of the records, we find that the appellant was supplying the goods to the consignment agent. The appellant is not contesting the demand of duty short-paid during consignment agent sale. The main grievance of the appellant is that they have also paid duty on higher assessable value and the refund of the excess amount of duty should be adjusted against the demand of duty paid on lower assessable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
