2013 (4) TMI 981

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hibaran, Additional Commissioner (AR), for the Appellant. Shri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER Revenue has filed appeals against the impugned orders. (a) For dropping the demand by the adjudicating authority and consequently resulting in a refund of ₹ 50,00,000/- to the respondents and (b) Sanctioning of refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that bar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... roforma invoice was not accepted by the buyers. No payment against the proforma invoice was paid. The Revenue is of the view that amount shown in proforma invoice is includible in assessable value. Therefore, show cause notice was issued for demanding the differential duty on the basis of proforma invoice. Adjudicating authority found that the amount shown in proforma invoice was not accepted by t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Commissioner (Appeals), who sanctioned the refund claim of the respondents. Against that order also, the Revenue is in appeal by way of Appeal No. E/85559/2013-Mum. 5. Heard both sides. 6. In this case first issue is that whether differential duty can be demanded on the basis of proforma invoice or not. 7. We do agree with the observations of the adjudicating authority that p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X