9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , E/677, 678/2008 by which common order, all the four appeals were dismissed, upholding the confirmation of duty demand, interest and penalties. 2.1. Learned counsel Shri Raghavan submitted that the Tribunal while passing the Final order omitted to consider certain material submissions put forward by the appellant. He pointed out the following:- i. In respect of quantification of duty, the learned counsel points out that Commissioner has adopted highest selling price for a particular model on monthly basis on the basis of sales effected during a particular month, instead of adopting actual sale price, which is contrary to principle provided under Rule 10A(ii) of the Valuation Rules. Learned counsel prays that in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d submissions, learned counsel submits that the matter may be remanded to original adjudicating authority for reconsideration of issues at Sl.No.i to iii above. 2.2. On behalf of the Department, learned AR Shri Nagaraj Naik and Shri Guna Ranjan submit that the Tribunal order does not call for any rectification. 2.3. Heard both sides. We find considerable merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel. It is a fact that in identical matters before other co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal, matter had been remanded to the Commissioner with directions to consider the RSO price as cum-duty price in computing the demand. 2.4. In this regard, para 36 of the decision in the case of Hyva (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt. Ltd.) referred to a letter dated 26.04.2007, wherein the said appellant has informed the Department about the determination of value of body-built vehicles on the supplied chassis post 01.04.2007. We find from the observation of the ld. Commissioner that no finding has been recorded on the said letter in recording suppression of facts. In relation to the other appeals which are taken up together, it is not clear as to whether, in all such appeals, similar letters were addressed to the Department indicating the method of assessment to be followed on body-built vehicles after 01.04.2007 by the respective appellants. In absence of scrutiny of the relevant records, it would be difficult to arrive at a conclusion tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of appeal No.E/625/2009 (application No.E/ROM/30368/2016) a. Penalty under Rule 25 of the Rules equivalent to the duty liability cannot sustain and is therefore set aside, following the decisions in identical matters by other co-ordinate Benches. b. Cum-duty benefit for the purpose of calculation of assessable value will be available to the appellant in this case. c. Only for the limited purpose of the issues raised by learned counsel at Sl.No.i to iv, the matter is remanded to the original authority for denovo consideration of these aspects including extending cum-duty benefit. Adjudicating authority should recalculate the duty liability accordingly. Such denovo proceedings should provide sufficient ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e also. We agree. The penalty is accordingly set aside.
3. All the four ROM applications are disposed of in above terms.`
4. It is noticed by us that even though the appeals filed by appellants viz. M/s. M.G. Automotives (P) Ltd., M/s. Mahindra Navistar Automotives Ltd. and M/s. Mahindra International Ltd. were disposed by the impugned common Final Order, there is an omission to mention the name of all appellants in the cause title, though, the appeal numbers were mentioned. The same also has to be rectified, and we order that the cause title in the impugned order shall stand modified by including the names of all appellants.
(Pronounced and dictated in open court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
