9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RDER Per: Bench The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of HSD Bars and are clearing their products through consignment agents, cost transfer to depot and on conversion basis to outlets from where the goods are ultimately sold to the consumers. For the purpose of discharging duty at the factory gate, the appellants adopted market value of the goods. As the consignme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only Rs. 9,23,870/-, resulting in excess payment of Rs. 6,44,473/-. They filed refund claim dated 28.11.2003 for refund of excess duty paid of Rs. 6,44,473/-. In the mean time, they were issued a SCN demanding differential duty demand of Rs. 6,01,746/- for the same period. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 1,11,360/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant was also directed to furnish his calculation to the department. Pursuant to such directions, the appeal was taken up today for disposal. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the department has calculated on the consignment basis and the differential duty arrived by the department is correct. He however pleaded that the penalty may be set aside. 4. Since the appellant is now con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
