9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 772X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoices should have been verified. Held that: - Once the foundation of the proposed enhancement in value loses validity, a fresh value using another method that was not proposed in the notice can be adopted only at peril to the correctness of the proceedings. It is well settled that adjudication orders cannot travel beyond the notice - Revenue has not adduced any evidence to support the conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order-in-original no. 12/2005 dated 5th March 2005 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai II. 2. The assessee was availing of the facility of invoice-based clearance of goods, permitted by notification no. 120/75-CE dated 30th April 1975 for clearance of switchgear. This facility was withdrawn on 2nd May 1985 as they were found to be in breach of the conditions in the notification inasmuc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been adjudicated by the Assistant Collector and that these could be adjudicated only upon finalisation of provisional assessment. Upon finalisation, the differential value was determined to be marginally higher than the declared value and much lower than the 26.74% proposed in the notice. Arising from this, the Honble High Court quashed both the show cause notices. With that, the pendency of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... None appeared for respondent. 6. The appeal contends that the adjudicating Commissioner had erroneously applied the finding in the finalisation of provisional assessment to the valuation of goods in the impugned order and that, instead of sample, all the invoices should have been verified. 7. The notice, as reported in the impugned order, admits to deficit of information arising from the ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
