9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id at the rate which was declared in the pricelist declaration filed for the previous year - Held that:- in the absence of any evidence to show that the price/assessable value adopted by the appellant did not fulfil the requirements/conditions under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, mere non-fulfilment of procedural requirement cannot justify the demand for differential duty. We fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed under Rule 173C for the period from April, 1996 to February, 1997 is not correct and duty is required to be paid at the rate which was declared in the pricelist declaration filed for the previous year. 2. The learned advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that the only ground for demanding the differential duty is that assessee did not file a revised price declaration but sold the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso, he submits that there is no evidence so show that the value adopted by the appellant did not fulfil the different requirements under Section 4(1)(a) of Central Excise Act, 1944. He also draws our attention, another decision of the Tribunal in the case of National Rayon Corpn. Ltd. v. CCE - 2003 (162) E.L.T. 1012 (Tri.-Del.) wherein the Tribunal took the view that even during the period when t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able value adopted by the appellant did not fulfil the requirements/conditions under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, mere non-fulfilment of procedural requirement cannot justify the demand for differential duty. We find that the decisions cited by the learned counsel are applicable to the facts of this case. 5. At this stage, we also take note of the fact that there is a penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
