9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1070X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cleaning Equipment and its accessories falling under Chapter Heading 84.79 and 96.03 of CETA'1985. They had cleared their final products during the period 1.7.2000 to 31.12.2009 along with parts and accessories directly to their customers as factory gate sale as well as to their depots located at various cities/towns of India on stock-transfer basis. For the goods cleared to their depots, they have adopted a list price for payment of duty. Subsequently, if the machines were sold at a lower or higher price than the one adopted at the factory gate, the difference in the transaction value was arrived at and the differential duty was paid every month after adjusting the excess and short payments. The suomotuadjustment of the excess duty pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the de novo adjudication order. Hence the present appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Shri K. SubashChandran, learned advocate appeared for the Appellant-Assessee and Shri L. Paneerselvam, A.C. Ld. A.R appeared for the Respondent-Revenue. 3. Learned Advocate submits that the impugned order is contrary to facts, CESTAT's final order dated 2.3.2011 as well as the findings of the adjudicating authority. He submits that there is excess payment made by the appellant. He submits that in one of the show cause noticedt. 4.3.2005, a sum of Rs. 1,66,771/- was demanded for the period from 1.7.2000 to 30.4.2002 during which period the duty payable as per the Tribunal's order was Rs. 9,58,802/-. But the appellant had paid a sum of Rs. 11,12,469.5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f their prayer, they have merely sought for setting aside the impugned order as under:- "4. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in Order-in-Appeal No. CMB-CEX-000-APP-213-13 dated 23.07.2013 and thus render justice." Which would not automatically entitle them to a refund. While holding that the order passed by the authorities below is erroneous and are liable to be set aside, we hold that with regard to refund, it is proper for the appellant to approach the office concerned for verification and certificate of excess payment which cannot be verified in this forum. This is the second round of litigation and we find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
