9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) For the Appellant Shri M. Karthikeyan, Advocate For the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are manufacturers of cotton yarn / knitted cotton fabrics and started commencing production in March 2001. It was noticed that the duty already paid on the clearances made to related persons / captive consumption was more than what was payable on the basis of the cost construction method. They filed refund claims claiming the refund of duty paid in excess. In the meanwhile, the officers visited the factory on 31.7.2002 and obtained statement. Respondents approached ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere was short payment of duty to the tune of ₹ 19,97,222/- on the clearances made to their sister concern / captive consumption during the said period. Show cause notice dt. 23.12.2009 was issued invoking extended period of limitation and demanding differential duty of ₹ 19,97,222/- along with interest and also proposing to impose penalties. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed duty demand, interest and imposed equal penalty. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed duty demand for the normal period of one year and set aside penalty imposed under Section 11AC. Against such order, the department is now before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, Ld. A.R. Shri S.Govindarajan submitted that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 12, the Commissioner has discussed in detail that there are no ingredients to attract the invocation of extended period and therefore the demand beyond the normal period cannot sustain. Only for the limited purpose of quantification of the duty demand, the matter has been remanded to the adjudicating authority. Though we agree with the proposition of law that Commissioner (Appeals) has no powers to remand the matter, we find that the remand was only for a limited purpose. In any case, the Tribunal has powers to remand and therefore, we direct the original authority to re-quantify the duty as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for the normal period. Appeal filed by the department is disposed in above terms. ( Operative part of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
