9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion now. Thus, it is observed that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has already dealt with all the issues in the impugned order and there is no infirmity in the impugned order for interference. Accordingly, the demand of duty confirmed in the impugned order is upheld. Penalty - HELD THAT:- The Appellant is entitled for the reduced penalty of 25% of the duty confirmed. Accordingly, if the Appellant pays the demand of duty confirmed in the impugned order along with interest on or before 31.12.2023, they are entitled for the reduced penalty of 25% of the demand confirmed. If they do not comply with the payment, the penalty of Rs.1,08,182/- will stand. Appeal disposed off. - HON BLE SHRI R. MURALIDHAR , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the said figured in Annexure-A2 page 3. However, I find that the appellant has not disputed with the valuation aspect of this case, therefore I think the value mentioned in the Annexure-A2 in calculating duty demand is accepted by the appellant. I, therefore modify the demand in above terms calculating the demand on the rest part of the calculation as per Annexure-A1 figures by amending Annexure A1 as below : Amended Annexure A1 Goods removed without payment of duty after availing CENVAT Credit (in pcs) Reversal of CENVAT Credit made on (in Pcs) Total number of goods removed without payment of duty after availing CENV ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner (appeals) has already considered all the disparities pointed out by the Appellant and reduced the demand from Rs. 2,39,986/- to Rs.108,182. The valuation aspect raised by the Appellant has been dealt with by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Appellant submits that there is no dispute of valuation now. Thus, we observe that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has already dealt with all the issues in the impugned order and there is no infirmity in the impugned order for interference. Accordingly, we uphold the demand of duty confirmed in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. In view of the above discussion, we uphold the demand confirmed in the impugned order. Regarding penalty, we hold that the Appellant is en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
