9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounds of litigation, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-Appeal No. 46/84 (T) dated 31.12.1984, allowed abatements towards freight and durable and returnable containers and directed the original authority to quantify such abatements. In compliance to the directions, the differential duty was worked out and aggrieved by such order in computing the differential duty, the appellants filed writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. The Hon'ble High Court directed the original authority to act in accordance with the decision rendered by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order No. 46/84 dated 31.12.84. Pursuant to such direction of the Hon'ble High Court, the Assistant Collector computed the differential duty and passed order as un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not been taken into account by the original authority. That the refund given by the appellant to consumers/dealers on the returnable containers is Rs. 5 and Rs. 5.50, whereas, the original authority has given abatements to the tune of Rs. 8.03 and Rs. 6.88 etc., for the relevant period; that therefore the quantification is erroneous. 3. Against this, the Ld. Counsel Shri G. Derrick Sam, appearing for the respondents explained that the respondents had refunded Rs. 5 for the metallic returnable containers, wherein the cost of the container was Rs. 8, which has been shown and declared in the price list by them; that the Commissioner (Appeals) has compared the price declared in the price list 7/79 with that of corresponding dealer s price li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found as under:- "Accordingly the lower adjudicator has re-casted the value and re-determined the duty as in the impugned Order-in-Original. From the above I am in agreement in giving abatement of Rs. 8.03, Rs. 6.88 etc., per tin. Revenue has not given an contrary findings or reasons to litigate the findings of the lower adjudicator. More allegations without substantiating would not suffice to set aside Order-in-Original and consequently to order for re-quantification. Hence this ground is rejected as unsubstantiated." 5.2 Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere with the quantification of abatement on durable and metal containers made by the authorities below. No other issues were argued before us. The impugned order does not call ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
