9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this claim of the Appellant as the Department has already accepted the correctness of the same in its comments/ verification report. therefore, the applications for rectification of mistake filed by the appellant have to be allowed. - ROM allowed - APPEAL No.E/869/2008 & 55/2009[DB] - Misc Order No. 70264-70265/2016 - Dated:- 30-6-2016 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Atul Gupta, Advocate Shri Hrishikesh, Advocate : for Appellant Shri D.K. Deb, Assistant Commissioner (AR), : for Respondent ORDER The Applicant have filed two Miscellaneous Applications No. E/ROM/70028 70029/2016 EX in the Appeal Nos. E/869/2008 E/55/2009-EX respectively seeking rectific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeal No. E/ 55/2009-Ex. It was further pointed out by the Ld. Counsel that when the said issue was raised by way of Misc. applications, the department sought time for seeking comments from jurisdictional the comments and its verification report dated 31.01.2013 during hearing before this Tribunal. It was further submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the department accepted on principle the claim of the Appellant and the said comments/ verification included the charts showing the admissible reduction from the total demand involved in the appeals. 3. It is further submitted that as per the Notification No. 23/2003-C.E. dated 31.03.2003 as amended the SAD is not payable on the goods which were not exempted from payment of sales tax. In case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be in accordance to the provisions-2 of the Notification No. 23/2003-CE date 31.03.2003. 4. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant prayed that the Final Order No. A/52325-52326/2015-EX[DB] dated 20.07.2015 may be rectified by deciding this aspects also and matter may be remanded for quantification of demand after reducing the value of goods stock transferred to other states from the total clearances. 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative for Revenue relied on the above referred Comments/verification report dated 31.01.2013 received from the jurisdictional Commissionerate and filed before the Tribunal during earlier hearings. 6. Considering the submissions, it is apparent from the records of the case that the appellant h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s there is no sale by way of import. Further, the appellant is not required to pay SAD on goods stock transferred to C F agents in different states which are subsequently cleared by them on payment of sales tax. Further, the value of goods may be taken as cum duty price. Therefore, matter requires quantification of the demand against the appellant by giving these three benefits. Accordingly, we remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for re quantification of the correct demand of duty payable by the appellant. Thus, demand shall be quantified after granting the benefits of (i) clearance of one EOU to another EOU without SAD; (ii) no SAD on goods stock transferred to C F agents in other States on which sales tax was subsequently paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
