9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect price for the purpose of discharging the excise duty - the adjudicating authority have applied the price of ₹ 6000 PMT however no basis of price was given. The said price is arbitrary and cannot be accepted. The appellant is required to discharge the duty on the price declared in the AR4 and not on the value as applied by the department in the adjudication order i.e. ₹ 6000 PMT - the demand is required to be re-quantified - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant. - E/2272/05 - A/85121/17/EB - Dated:- 3-1-2017 - Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri. Vishal Agarwal, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. V.K. Agarwal, Addl. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om time to time keep on changing. He submits that since the goods were cleared on the price which is lower than price declared in AR4 excise duty was paid at the time of selling of such goods therefore to that extent no demand should have been raised and confirmed. He placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) J.K. Papers Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-I[2003(157) ELT 184(Tri. Del.)] (b) Rajasthan Spinning Weaving Mills Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II[2000(121) ELT 790(Tri.)] (c) Nowrosjee Wadia Sons Ltd Vs. Commr. Of Cus., C. Ex. Mumbai-II[2005(192) ELT 1064(Tri. Mum)] 3. Shri. V.K. Agarwal, Ld. Addl. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udgments relied by the Ld. Counsel in case of J.K. Papers Ltd(supra), Rajasthan Spinning Weaving Mills Ltd (supra) and Nowrosjee Wadia Sons Ltd (supra) , it was held that value in case of goods cleared for export and not exported, value as mentioned in AR4 should be taken for payment of duty. Considering the ratio of the judgments and the discussion made herein above, we are of the view that appellant is required to discharge the duty on the price declared in the AR4 and not on the value as applied by the department in the adjudication order i.e. ₹ 6000 PMT. In view of the above, the demand is required to be re-quantified. The adjudicating authority is at liberty to re-quantify the demand according to above observations. The ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
