9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been declared in the price list and as such were not known prior to the clearance and these discounts were not available to all the customers. The assessments during above mentioned period of dispute were provisional. The assessment were finalized by the Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 24-1-1997 by which he disallowed the deduction of these discounts. However, he directed the Superintendent to finalize the assessment as the RT-12 returns filed during this period had been assessed on provisional basis only. The respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the Order-in-Original dated 24-1-1997 of the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal dated 9-9-2004, upheld t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T. 723 (S.C.) and in view of this judgment, the net price to an independent buyer at the factory gate would also be the assessable value in respect of the clearances made from factory to the depots consignment agents. 1.3 Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed by the Revenue. 2. None appeared for the respondent though a notice for hearing had been issued to them. In view of this, so far as the respondent are concerned, in accordance with Rule 21 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, the matter is being decided ex parte. 3. Heard Shri Ranjan Khanna, the ld. DR, who assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds of appeal and pleaded that since, the issue on merits had been decided by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner's order dated 24-1-1997 and this show cause notice had been issued only for the purpose of quantification, subsequent to finalization of provisional assessment. When the Assistant Commissioner's Order dated 24-1-1997 has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal dated 17-9-2004 and appeal to Tribunal against that order had also been dismissed, the Commissioner (Appeals) could not reopen the finalization of provisional assessment on merits by observing that the Order-in-Original dated 24-1-1997 of the Assistant Commissioner finalizing the provisional assessment was ex parte order or that the same was not correct. Moreover, since the assessments were provisional, the limitation period under Section 11A(1) would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
