9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, the value was determined on the basis of the greatest aggregate quantity of goods sold i.e. the normal transaction value of the goods and adopted the same for finalization of the assessment. The grievance of the Revenue is that even though assessment was made final by the adjudicating authority on the basis of the report of the Range Superintendent dated 03.09.2007, who verified the data and the normal transaction value is determined in accordance with CBE C Circular No. 803/33/04-CX dated 27.12.2004, but the detail work-sheet in arriving at the said normal transaction value was not enclosed with the impugned order - there is no fine merit in the said contention of the Revenue, as in para 16 of the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules, 2000; determined the normal transaction value and consequently, finalized the assessment on the basis of the verification report submitted by Range Superintendent confirming differential duty of ₹ 5,69,574/- for the period January, 2007 to March, 2007. Revenue filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the detail work-sheet of the calculation of the greatest aggregate quantity of goods sold has not been elaborated in the order of the adjudicating authority while finalization of the assessment. Hence, the same is bad in law. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to arrive at the correct normal transaction value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -CX dated 27.12.2004, but the detail work-sheet in arriving at the said normal transaction value was not enclosed with the impugned order. We do not fine merit in the said contention of the Revenue, as in para 16 of the order of the adjudicating authority, relevant month-wise data for the assessment period has been mentioned, which was based on the report of the Range Superintendent. No contrary evidence has been placed by the Revenue to show that the data reflected in the impugned order by the adjudicating authority is incorrect. In absence of evidence, rebutting the said finding of the adjudicating authority, we do not see merit in the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) doubting the normal transaction value calculated as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
