9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D.N. Panda, Member (J) S/Shri S.K. Bagaria, Sr. Advocate and Partha Banerjee, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Y.S. Loni, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. The Appellants' factory is situated at Gamharia, Jamshedpur in which pig iron, steel billets, wire rods etc. are manufactured. The Appellants have got 8 depots and 9 consignment agents. The goods manufactured in their factory are cleared to these depots/consignment agents from where the same are sold subsequently to independent wholesale buyers. Majority of the sales from the depots/consignment agents are sales of steel wire rods in respect of which the prices vary on day to day basis and even on a single day the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Shri Bagaria states that the Appellants have initially paid the duty at the prevailing price at the time of clearance from the factory and subsequently they have paid the differential duty when goods have been sold at higher prices from the depots/premises of consignment agents. The jurisdictional Authorities have also finalized the assessments taking into account the duty paid initially and differential duty paid subsequently. He further states that as a result of paying duty on each consignment sold from the depots/premises of the consignment agents based on the invoice value, the Appellants have actually paid more duty than they are required legally to pay on the basis of depot price prevailing at the time of removal of the goods from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n calculated in respect of only those consignments where the duty payment is less than the duty calculated on the highest value prevailing at the depot on the day of removal from the factory. Firstly, we find no warrant in the valuation law to calculate the duty on the basis of the highest value prevailing at the depot on the day of clearance from the factory. The law requires that only the time of clearance is to be taken into account and when there are fluctuations in the price during the day, the Department should have gone by the price prevailing at the time of removal and not the highest value prevailing on the day of removal. Secondly, even according to the Department the total duty liability of the appellants which has been calculate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts ignoring the total duty paid and that too beyond the lapse of the normal period of limitation prescribed under the law is nothing but high-handedness and the same cannot be given the sanctity of law. We, therefore, have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order and the notice of demand dated 4-8-2003 for Rs. 48,82,234/- issued for the period 1997-98 to June, 2000. 5. Apart from the demand of Rs. 48,82,434/-, another demand of Rs. 7,41,322/- has also been confirmed in the impugned order under Section 11D of the 1944 Act. Shri Bagaria, learned Sr. Advocate states that this demand is also time barred as the notice was issued on 4-8-2003 for the period ending June, 2000. Moreover, he states that the Appellants have not recovered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
