9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d from October 2004 to August 2005, the matter is being remanded to the original authority. Equal penalty u/s 11AC - Held that: - contumacious conduct of KPM definitely justify such equal penalty. However, such equal penalty will obviously have to be revised equal to the revised differential duty liability as may be arrived at in the denovo adjudication. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/554 & 555/2007 - 40879-40880/2017 - Dated:- 5-6-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri M. Kannan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per: Madhu Mohan Damodhar The issue in dispute relates to detection of cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... balance raw tobacco had been sold and only subsequently they were able to correlate and file affidavits from the concerned buyers thereof. This fact was brought before both the authorities to argue that the said 42,221 kgs. of raw tobacco had not been utilized by them at all for manufacture of raw tobacco and therefore to that extent, their duty liability will reduce. 2.2 Ld. Advocate further submits that chewing tobacco was brought under the MRP net for assessment purpose under section 4A, with effect from 1.3.2003, vide Notification No.10/2003-CE(NT), which also extended 50% abatement from MRP for determining the assessable value. 2.3 Ld. Advocate submits that the period of dispute relates to October 2004 to August 2005, hence the M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been admitted by Shri Shri Abdul Salam in his statement, which was not retracted at any time. The submission of affidavits by purported buyers will, therefore, not be of any avail to the appellant. The plea of the appellant on this score will therefore fail. 5.2 However, coming to the matter of determination of assessable value, we do find force in the plea of the learned counsel. True, this contention has not been raised by the appellant either before the original or the lower appellate authority, but it cannot be denied that the impugned goods, viz. chewing tobacco, was very much within the ambit of MRP based valuation with effect from 1.3.2003 and an abatement of 50% of the MRP value was extended for calculating the assessable value f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
