9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Order in Appeal dated 09.08.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the demand of duty on the goods clandestinely removed. There is no dispute about clandestine removal of the goods. The only plea of the appellant is that the cum duty benefit has not been extended by lower authority which should have been allowed. 2. Sh. R. Subramanya Ld. Coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of impugned order. He further submits that both the lower authorities have considered the issue of cum duty price , the same was denied on the ground that since the appellant have cleared the goods clandestinely, the value charged to the customer was assessable value, therefore, no cum duty benefit can be granted. 4. I have carefully cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s regards the cum duty price, even in case clandestine removal it has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of Santosh Kumar Kishan Lal Jain (supra), wherein the Division Bench of this Tribunal given the following finding. 10. The appellants further contended that while adopting value of the final product as Rs. 12/- per puda containing 3 gm. and 6 gm., the benefit of duty liable to be pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
