9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verification by the adjudicating authority - We also observed that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) decided the entire case solely on the basis of Larger Bench judgement of Mahindra & Mahindra [2006 (4) TMI 18 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] - the reliance solely on the basis of Larger Bench decision in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra (supra) is not proper on the part of the Commissioner for confirming the demand. The adjudicating authority shall pass a denovo adjudication order after verifying the quantification as submitted by the appellant and also by analyzing various judgements cited by the learned Counsel - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/1039 & 1054/06 - A/88110-88111/17/EB - Dated:- 23-6-2017 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 809/- and NIL demands respectively. He also made a submission on the limitation. He submits that the entire demand was confirmed by the learned Commissioner only on the basis of Larger Bench decision in the case of Mahindra Mahindra 2005 (190) ELT 301 (T-LB). Therefore, when there was conflicting view of the issue, there was no suppression of facts on the part of te appellants and the extended period of demand is not invocable. In this regard, he placed reliance on the following judgements: a) Savira Industries 2016 (331) ELt 504 (T) b) Mahindra Mahindra 2006 (201) ELT 27 (T) c) Essar Engineering Contractors - 2009 (245) ELT 161 (T) d) TISCO Ltd. 2006 (199) ELT 855 (T) e) Punjab Chemi Plants 2006 (198) ELT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the findings in the impugned order and he also made a written submission by citing various decisions which was taken on record. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that the learned Counsel raised the question of quantification of demand. In this regard, he has given re-quantification chart as under: Sl. No Particular F.Y 2000-2001 F.Y 2001-2002 1. Assessable value as per show cause notice (i.e. sales receipt less SSI exemption 25,60,400 79,76,123 2 Duty demand proposed in notice (prior to cum duty be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,584 3 Turnover of aluminum from different projects - - i) Akruti Nirman Projects (i.e. cost of aluminium sections used in the project + conversion cost of the aluminium in the above bill) (see working note on age 42 7 44) 84,41,756 - ii) Basons Investment (i.e. cost of aluminium sections used in the project + conversion cost of the aluminium in the above bill + profit attributable to aluminium (See working note on page 43 44) 50,87,615 1,38,78,919 iii) ITC Marratha Sheraton Ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
