9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 811X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ices issued to Railways during this period, which have been placed on record, it is seen that while the rate of duty is mentioned 18%, the duty actually shown in the invoices has been calculated @ 15%. In a number of other invoices though the pre-printed rate of duty is mentioned as 18%, but the same has been cancelled and modified as 15% and accordingly the duty had been charged @ 15% only. In our view, merely on the basis of the DRM, Ajmer s letter, the copy of which was not supplied to the appellant, it is not correct for the Department to conclude that during the period of dispute the appellant had recovered duty from railways @ 18%. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - Excise Appeal No. 2136 of 2006 - Final Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals) was received by the appellant on 28/5/98 and in respect of the supplies made after this date they paid duty on the clearances of Thermit portion @ 15% adv. by classifying the same under heading 7302.90. The Revenue filed an appeal to the Tribunal against the Commissioner (Appeals) s order. The Revenue s appeal was decided by the Tribunal dated 3/2/2000 by which the Tribunal held that the Thermit portion is classifiable under heading 3810 of the Tariff. The Tribunal, however, held that the differential duty would be recoverable only for normal period of limitation from the relevant date and accordingly the no duty was recoverable from the period from June 1998 to February 1999. In fact, for this period, no show cause notice had been is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Section 11D. On appeal being filed to Commissioner (Appeals) against this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 27/1/06 dismissed the appeal. Against the above order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri Rahul Tangri, C.A., the learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the dispute is only in respect of period from June 1998 to February 1999, that during this period the appellant in pursuance of the order-in-appeal dated 28th May, 1998 classifying the Thermit portion under sub-heading 7302.90 were paying duty in respect of clearances of Thermit portion to railways @ 15% adv., that in all the invoices issued to Railways they have charged duty @ 15% adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner in it and pleaded that the letter dated 09/2/04 of the DRM, Ajmer clearly proves that in respect of supplies of Thermit portion to railways during the period from June 1998 to February 1999, the appellant have recovered excise duty @ 18% adv. and not 15% adv. 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. The Department s allegation that during the period from June 1998 to February 1999, the appellant while paying duty to the Department @ 15% in respect of clearances of Thermit portion had recovered from customer railways @ 18% is based only on one tender document dated 27/5/98 to M/s IRCON wherein the rate of duty applicable in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
