9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y as per the Rule 10A(ii) of the Valuation Rules, 2000 but on the amount on which duty have been demanded from the appellants, duty has already been paid by the M/s ISGEC on the said amount. If the duty has been demanded from the appellant, in that circumstances, it will be the case of demand of duty twice on the same product which is not permissible in law - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/494, 496/2010 - Final Order No. 62570-62571 / 2018 - Dated:- 30-7-2018 - Hon ble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member ( Judicial ) And Hon ble Mr. Devender Singh, Member ( Technical ) Ms. Krati Somani Advocate- for the appellant Shri. G. M. Sharma, AR- for the respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. In these set of facts, the proceedings were initiated against the appellants, consequently, the differential duty was demanded along with interest and penalties were also imposed on the appellants. Aggrieved from the said orders, the appellants are before us. 3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that in their own case for the earlier period this Tribunal held that the differential duty is not payable by the appellants, therefore, the impugned orders are to be set aside. 4. Heard the parties. 5. Considering the fact that the identical issue came up before this Tribunal in appellant s own case for the earlier period, wherein, this Tribunal observed as under: 7. In this case, the facts have not been disputed that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nderstanding, the appellants have cleared the goods to M/s ISGEC on the value arrived at the job charges plus raw material. The appellants from no stretch of means can be said have suppressed the facts of under valuation and paid less duty by suppressing value of the said goods as there was an understanding between the appellants and the principle manufacturer that the process of testing undertaken by the M/s ISGEC amounts to manufacture. Ultimately, the duty has been paid by the M/s ISGEC on transaction value of M/s ISGEC, on that circumstances, as duty has been paid on the transaction value of the said goods, in that circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellants were having any intention to pay less duty on the said goods. Therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
