9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpared certain elements of the cost with those declared in the original work-sheet submitted along with the price declaration and come to the conclusion that the data submitted in the unsigned work-sheet is incorrect - it was wrong on part of the appellant to submit an unsigned work-sheet of CAS-4 before Commissioner. Now the appellants have submitted the said data duty certified. The same was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... price declaration, who found certain shortcomings, as a result of which demand of duty was raised against the appellant for the period October, 97 to March, 02. The demand was confirmed and the matter reached the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 21.6.2005 remanded the matter with following observations: - 1. After hearing both sides and on finding that the issue involved in this case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... work-sheet submitted by the appellant was rejected. After making certain corrections revise demand of ₹ 3,59,410/-, as against ₹ 6,74,870/-, was confirmed and equivalent penalty was imposed. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are before Tribunal once again. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that during adjudication, unsigned copies of the Cost Accountant Certifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant, however, did not submit CAS-4 certified data before the Commissioner and consequently the Commissioner in the impugned order has compared certain elements of the cost with those declared in the original work-sheet submitted along with the price declaration and come to the conclusion that the data submitted in the unsigned work-sheet is incorrect. We find that it was wrong on part of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
