9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisional assessment. Also, there was no demand notice was issued to the appellant to demand duty. In that circumstance, Commissioner (Appeals) fell in error in confirming the demand against the appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/2144/2009-DB - A/62200/2018-EX[DB] - Dated:- 20-3-2018 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri B.L. Narsimhan, Advocate for the Appellant(s) Shri A.K. Saini, A.R. for the Respondent(s) Per : Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are that, appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Rubber V Belts and Hose Pipes. As the appellant was allowi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discounts were to be provided to the buyers later on. Moreover, the appellant has executed necessary bonds and bank guarantee to that effect. Thereafter, regular returns were filed showing that appellant is clearing goods under provisional assessment and the said provisional assessment was finalised by the adjudicating authority therefore, merely because no formal order for provisional assessment was passed, proceedings against the appellant cannot be initiated. In that circumstance, it is prayed that impugned order is to be set-aside. To support this contention, he relied on the decision in the case of Jam Shri Rajnitsinghji Spg. Wvg. Mills Company Limited vs. UOI 2007 (218) ELT 516 (Bom.) which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the said order has been challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) who relying on the decision in Metal Forgings vs. UOI 2002 (146) ELT 241 (SC) has set-aside the adjudication order. The observation of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is that the assessments were never provisional as there was no order passed under Rule 9B of the Rules, therefore the assessments were never provisional and confirmed the demand against the appellant. We also take note of the fact that there was no demand notice was issued to the appellant to demand duty. In that circumstance, Commissioner (Appeals) fell in error in confirming the demand against the appellant. We further take note of the fact that the show cause notice issued to the appellant on 30.04. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
