9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal assessment? - Held that:- Reference can be made to latest decision in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur: [2015 (11) TMI 953 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)] wherein there was originally difference of opinion between the two Members of the Bench and the issue was decided by the third Member. It was held that the assessee is entitled for adjustment of excess paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent is manufacturer of communication equipments classifiable under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period from 1.4.1998 to 31.3.1999, the respondents were selling their goods to the Department of Telecommunication, Government of India against contracts. As per the price variation clause in the contract, the price of the goods was to be finalized only after their clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above order, the Commissioner (A) held that the duty excess paid by the assessee is required to be adjusted against the duty short-paid by them. Inasmuch as excess paid duty was more than the duty short-paid, he neutralized the same and advised the assessee to file refund claim for the balance. 3. Being aggrieved with the said order, Revenue has filed the appeal on the following grounds. * ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ideration and the same is required to be included in the selling price of the goods and duty payable on this account. * In view of the above, Commissioner (Appeals) Bangalore has erred in modifying the demand for the period 1998-99 and hence the order suffers from infirmity and therefore the same is not legal and proper. * In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the O-I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made to latest decision in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur: 2015-TIOL-2427-CESTAT-DEL. wherein there was originally difference of opinion between the two Members of the Bench and the issue was decided by the third Member. It was held that the assesse is entitled for adjustment of excess paid duty with the short-paid duty during the period of provisional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
