2023 (6) TMI 843

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Shri S. Mukhopadhyay , Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER K. ANPAZHAKAN Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Appellants are manufacturers of excisable goods namely Titanium-Dioxide and Ferrous Sulphate. The said goods were either sold directly to customers or cleared to their Depot(s) at Delhi and Mumbai on payment of duty, for subsequent sale at negotiated price t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ellant filed the present appeal before this Tribunal against the impugned order. 3. In their written submissions, the Appellant stated that the goods were initially cleared to the depot(s) on payment of duty at a price prevailing in the market. Later, more than 90% of the goods were cleared at the same price on which duty was paid. Only a small percentage of goods were sold at a higher price from .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sustainable and requested to set aside the demands. 4. The Ld DR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 5. The Appellant has not appeared for the hearing. Accordingly, the appeal is taken up for hearing based on the submissions of the Appellant available in the record. 6. We observe that the issue involved in this case is whether the duty paid by the appellant in respect of the goods cl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y intimated to the Department in the monthly ER-1 returns filed by them and the department never raised any objection. The EA-2000 Audit party previously visited the factory also not pointed out any discrepancy in the method of valuation adopted by them for depot clearances. Accordingly, they contended that the demands raised by invoking extended period under proviso to Section 11A(1) is not susta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ficer has verified the Returns submitted by them and demanded differential duty vide letter dated 17.09.2017. Therefore, we hold that demands raised by invoking extended period is not sustainable. 10. We observe that the Appellant have paid differential duty for the normal period from December 2006 to November 2007. Since the Appellant have already paid the differential duty for the normal period .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X