9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t shall be taken as transaction value - Held that:- Since the Ld. Counsel does not press on the issue of cum duty price, the demand of differential duty upheld by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is upheld. Penalty u/s 11AC - benefit of reduced penalty - Held that:- The board in the CBEC Circular No. 208/07/2008-CE-6 dated 22.05.2008 directed the adjudicating authority that it is necessary to give o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... selling that product through their depot. The price charged at the time of sale from the depot is higher than the price declared at the time of clearance of goods from the factory. The claim of the appellant is that since there are some addition at depot such as monitor, key-board etc, hence the value on that count is not includible. The case of the department is that the value which was charged t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal before Commissioner (Appeals) who reduced the demand of differential duty from ₹ 4,30,161/- to ₹ 3,80,912/- on the ground that the differential amount has already been paid. The penalty was also reduced to ₹ 3,80,912/- and the penalty on Sh. K K Choudhary was reduced to ₹ 20,000/-. 3. Sh. Sachin Chitnis Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argued on the iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.A/85836-86839/17/SMB dated 10.02.2017 in the case of M/s Noble Drugs Ltd. * CESTAT Order No. A/89237/17/SMB dated 11.08.2017 in the case of Aqua Alloys P. Ltd. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. Since the Ld. Counsel does not press on the issue of cum duty price, we uphold the demand of differential duty upheld by the Ld. Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period of 30 days from receipt of this order. Taking into consideration over all facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the director Sh. K.K. Choudhary could not have been implicated as the issue involved is interpretation of valuation provision, accordingly the penalty imposed on Sh. K.K. Choudhary under Rule 26 is set aside. 5. In the result appeal of the company is partly allowed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
