9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 902X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been provided. The matter is once again remanded to the Commissioner for re-quantification of the duty demand strictly in term of the directions of the Apex Court - appeal allowed by way of remand. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acting duty @ 40% advelorum. The Tribunal also held that M/s IRLP and M/s. IMPL are not related persons and also that extended limitation period is not applicable. The Tribunal directed the re-quantification of the duty demand for normal limitation period and thereby making the Show Cause Notice dt. 10.04.19996 time barred. The penalty on M/s. IMPL and Ms. Vinita Jain, Managing Director, were set aside. However, the question on levy of penalty on IRLP was left open. 2. The Department filed appeal to Hon'ble Supreme Court. Apex Court vide judgment dtd. 08.09.2008 held that 20 out of 92 products were ayurvedic medicines and the remaining were cosmetics and toilet preparation attracting higher duty @ 40% advelorum. With regard to value, the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nting personal hearing. The matter was adjudicated de-novo once again vide order-in-original dtd.27.12.2011 by which the duty demand of ₹ 1,17,64,695/- was confirmed in respect of Show Cause Notice's dtd. 30.09.1996 & 31.12.1996 and the remaining duty demand was dropped. Against this order of the Commissioner, this appeal has been filed. 4. Heard both the sides. 5. Sh. K.K.Anand, Advocate, ld. counsel for the appellant, pleaded that re-quantification of duty has not been done in terms of the Apex Court order, that the Commissioner in the cases where the sale have been made to IMPL as well as to independent buyers, has rejected invoices pertaining to sale of the goods to independent buyers without any justification and that in view o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
