9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Per: Ramesh Nair The Revenue filed the present appeal only contesting the demand dropped on time bar. The fact of the case is that the respondents are engaged in manufacture of chemicals namely Tri Phenyl Phosphite and Tris Nonyl Phenyl Phosphite falling under Chapter Heading 38 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The officers of the Anti Evasion Wing, visited the respondent's premises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst invalidation of Advance License. The value charged to them was lower than then the sale price charged to other customer. Therefore the case was made out alleging that due to supply against advance licence, the value was suppressed thus there is a short payment of duty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 16,81,132/- ordered for payment of interest under Section 11AB a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l misstatement on the part of the respondent with intent to evade payment of duty. Therefore the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly dropped the demand on time bar. 3. On the other hand Shri M.P. Sathe, Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the different prices were charged due to the supply made against invalidation of the advance license. This is not a case where the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dropped the demand on the ground of time bar. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. In the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue only contents that respondent's ER.1 Returns does not show invoice wise details therefore there is suppression of fact and willful misstatement. Other than this there is no ground to rebut the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals). It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
