9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no reason to selectively reject the verification report. Since, the claim of the appellant is that they have deposited higher duty than what is demanded, we are not going into the other aspects regarding the applicability of specific rule for valuation etc. Here, we have to note that the appellants did follow a procedure for discharging duty by tracking each consignment and indicating the differential payment in their statutory returns - the question of issue demand for extended period requires/examination by the Original Authority who, as already noted has been directed to examine the quantification with reference to claim of the appellant of duty demand already made. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Excise Appeals No.51190 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue the appellants did not claim any refund of differential duty. 2. In these background, the Revenue initiated proceedings against the appellant to demand and recover differential Central Excise duty from them on the ground that they have not adopted correct transaction value to discharge duty on excisable goods cleared from the factory but sold through depot. The view of the Revenue is that the price list announced by the appellant for sale from depot is available for all varieties of goods. The said price list can form basis of valuation when the goods were cleared from the factory. In terms of Rule 11 of the Valuation Rules, adopting such price list, the Revenue arrived at the differential duty. The Original Authority upholding such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the verification report given by the Jurisdictional officer. 4. The learned AR supported the findings in the impugned order. He stated that the Commissioner examined the applicability of Rule 7 and Rule 11 to the facts of the present case and concluded the valuation has to be done in terms of Rule 11. For Rule 11 which is a residuary Rule, the reasonable price as available based on the data submitted by the appellant has been adopted. The price list given by the appellant is indicative of the correct transaction value and is correctly adopted. This cannot be disputed. Regarding quantification of duty, the learned AR submitted that the Commissioner refused to accept the same for three years because the authorized representative of the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h filed by the appellant during the material time cannot be disputed. We note the Original Authority did not give any acceptable reason for not accepting the verification report and the details available in ER-1 returns supported by certificate of Chartered Accountant submitted by the appellant. We find no reason to selectively reject the verification report. On this ground, we note that claim of the appellants that they have discharged much higher duty than the amount now demanded has force and requires re-verification in line of the above observation. 6. Since, the claim of the appellant is that they have deposited higher duty than what is demanded, we are not going into the other aspects regarding the applicability of specific rule fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
