9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 963X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the sister concern. The entire issue is raised an afooting that there is mis-matching of the description by the lower authorities. Both the lower authorities have overlooked the description in its correct perspective, as the invoices which has been raised by the appellant for clearing to their sister concern indicates that the dimension in “inches” while when the goods were imported and the Bill of Entry indicates the description in “mm”. On casual conversion of the dimensions in Bill of Entry and on the invoice I find that there is no difference. - impugned order is incorrect and is liable to be set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/89445/13-Mum - - - Dated:- 13-4-2015 - M. V. Ravindran, Member (J),J. For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on payment of duty, after the clearance was undertaken a part of the quantity were diverted to the sister concern. She would draw my attention to the Bill of Entry filed by the appellant and submit that the description of the goods imported were the same which were cleared to the sister concern. It is her submission that there cannot be demand of duty as on 30.10.2007 the appellant had prepared an invoice by debiting the amount of duty liability in their CENVAT Credit account which has nullified the demand raised by the department. It is her submission that the appellant had already paid back the amount to the department and the show-cause notice issued on 16.09.2009 received by them on 11.11.2009 is not required to be issued. She would a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part of quantity of 3597 Kg. was diverted to one of the sister concern M/s Sapna Engineering. The only issue disputed in this case is that whether the appellant having already reversed CENVAT Credit on the quantity of goods diverted to sister concern, again needs to be saddled with the same amount as ineligible CENVAT Credit. 8. On perusal of the records, I find that the appellant has recorded the receipt of the quantity of the goods imported by him as 7438.80 kgs of Seamless copper tube ASTM B280 size 9.48 mm x 0 in RG 23 Part-I records on 30.10.20007. It is also noticed that the appellant has debited the said RG 23 Part I record for a quantity of 3597 Kg. as per the invoice having been issued dated 30.10.2007. I notice that RG 23 Part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
