9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manded back to the Original Authority with direction that for the period from April, 2009 to November, 2009 value of clearances reflected in ER-1 returns should be taken into consideration for duty demandable and for the period for which duty is to be recovered from the appellant Cenvat credit on capital goods and inputs should be allowed - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/370/2011-EX[SM] - F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led upon to show cause as to why Central Excise duty amounting ₹ 2,81,46,286/- involved on glasses manufactured and cleared during the period from 2006-07 to 2009-10 should not be demand under Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Further, there were other allegations. The show cause notice was contested by the appellant. Appellant, particularly contested the methrology of arriving at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant has challenged the said order in the present appeal. 3. Grounds of appeal inter-alia include that computation of the demand for the year 2009-10 was erroneous in the impugned Order-in-Original. The appellant contended that from the period May, 2009 to November, 2009, the learned Commissioner has assumed clearances of value of ₹ 1,03,96,008/-. The content ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue of clearance from April, 2009 to November, 2009 are tenable. The appellant s records particularly returns for the quarter ending June, 2009, September, 2009 and December, 2009 are available with the Department and Commissioner should have considered the value forwarded by the appellant in the statutory records particularly when statutory records were not challenged by Revenue and further ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
