9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Revenue. - Appeal Nos.C/S/42533 to 42553/2013 & C/42535 to 42555/2013 - FINAL ORDER No.40483-40503/2014 - Dated:- 7-8-2014 - Shri P.K. Das and Shri R. Periasam, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri M. Rammohan Rao, DC (AR) For the Respondent : Ms. V. Pramila, Advocate JUDGEMENT Per P.K. Das; 1. Revenue filed these applications for stay of operation of the order passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on their parent company for the purpose of assessment of goods. The respondent challenged the adjudication order before the Commissioner (Appeals). Subsequently, Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter for de novo adjudication. By De novo Adjudication Order No.20908/2013 dt. 14.5.2013, the assessing officer accepted the transaction value. In the meantime, the Assessing Officer following the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.C.Cus/1308 to 1328/13 dated 25.9.2013 has allowed the 21 appeals filed by the importer based on the de novo Order-in-Original No.20908/13 dated 14.05.2013. As far as this de-Novo Order-in-Original is concerned, department has filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 28.8.2013. the departmental appeal is still pending before the Appellate Authority. 4. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that the Commissioner (Appeals) earlier remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority. It is seen that the adjudicating authority again accepted the value declared by the respondent. 6. In view of that, we do not find any substance in the appeals filed by Revenue. Accordingly, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected. Stay applications are disposed of. We make it clear that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
