9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .S. Tandon, Sh. S.C. Kamra, Sh. R.K. Hasuja, Sh. Vikrant Kackria, Advocates for the Appellant(s) Sh. Tarun Kumar, AR for the Respondent(s) ORDER The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand on account of amortized cost has been recovered from the buyers and the penalties are imposed on all the appellants by way of impugned order. 2. The brief facts of the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liable for confiscation therefore, the penalty was proposed on the co-appellants also. The matter was adjudicated and it was held that the amount received in one go on account of pattern/dies used captively by the appellants for manufacturing of castings which were delivered to the buyers/co-appellants, the appellant is entitled for benefit of Notification No. 67/1995 and no demand is payable by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proposal of confiscation of pattern/dies for which onetime payment has been made by them and it was proposed to be held liable for confiscation but in the adjudication order, there is no proposal for confiscation of those pattern and dies. Moreover, it was held that no duty is to be demanded on the onetime payment made by the co-appellants on account of pattern and dies which were used captively f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For that purpose, by setting aside the impugned order, the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to verify the fact that whether the appellant has recovered the amortized cost twice from the buyers or not? If so, the duty is to be paid? If it is not recovered, then no duty is payable by the main appellant. With these terms, with regard to the confirmation of duty against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
