2017 (5) TMI 1246

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a direction to consider the reasons given by the appellant for the discrepancies observed by the Revenue during the course of audit - appeal allowed of remand.
Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Shri T. R. Rajesh Kumar, CA For the Appellant Shri K. T. Pakshirajan, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 28.5.2010 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture and clearance of excisable goods viz., precise and tools falling under Chapter Heading 8207 9090 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA), 1985 and ar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tral Excise Rules, 2002 Rs.10,622/- Total Rs.2,71,702/- On these allegations, a show-cause notice dated 4.2.2008 was issued to the appellant proposing duty, interest and penalty. Thereafter following due process of law, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) on the ground that they had no intention to evade payment of duty and wherever there is a short payment, it was on account of mere confusion in the law. It was further submitted before the Commissioner (A) that the entire demand is barred by limitation as there is no suppression on the part of the appellant. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned consultant for the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... removal of trial tool under returnable Delivery Challan (DC) without payment of duty or without reversal of credit, the learned counsel submitted that in some cases tools were not approved by the customers and in such circumstances, no excise duty was payable as the condition for marketability was not fulfilled. He also submitted that in some cases, the goods were not approved by the customers and were also not received back by the appellant, in such cases, on the 180th day, the appellant reversed the credit but these circumstances were not considered and hence, the confirmation of demand is not sustainable. He also submitted that the entire demand is time barred. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X