9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 971X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the remittances do not match with invoice value. In para 8 of the denovo order the adjudicating authority has noted that the appellant has furnished all the particulars of imports made from the year 2001 to 2008 as well as copies of corroborated bank statement. There is no evidence adduced by department to establish that the appellant has made remittances higher than the invoice price. So also the appellant has produced the CA certificate substantiating the payments made to the supplier for the relevant period. The AA has held that the e-mail communication is a mere afterthought. The appellant has been continuously litigating contending that they had been given 25% discount by the foreign supplier. So also, they have later produced the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.1 Against such order the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (appeals), and vide Order in Appeal dated 31.10.2005 the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order passed by adjudicating authority. The appellant then approached the Tribunal by filing an appeal vide Final Order No. 997/2006 dated 22.09.2006. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Observation was made in para 9 of the Final Order that the claim of the appellant that they had been given 25% discount from 15.06.2001 has considerable force. The Tribunal directed that the e-mail sent by supplier abroad to the appellant was also to be taken into consideration in such denovo adjudication. 1.2 In remand proceedings, the original authority passed order date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the argument of appellant that they were getting 25% discount from the supplier from 15.06.2001 carries considerable force. So also, the matter was remanded with specific observation to original authority to take into consideration the e-mail issued by supplier. In the denovo proceedings the original authority has rejected the contention put forward by the appellant stating that the e-mail produced by the appellant is only an afterthought. Further, the appellant have also produced a copy of the amendment of the agreement dated 18.8.2006 which expressly states that supplier is giving 25% discount to the appellant and that it should take effect retrospectively from 2001. The department failed to consider these facts and documents. The Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances do not match with invoice value. In para 8 of the denovo order the adjudicating authority has noted that the appellant has furnished all the particulars of imports made from the year 2001 to 2008 as well as copies of corroborated bank statement. There is no evidence adduced by department to establish that the appellant has made remittances higher than the invoice price. So also the appellant has produced the CA certificate substantiating the payments made to the supplier for the relevant period. 5.2 The Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation had categorically held that claim of the appellant for 25% discount is not without substance and had remanded the matter directing the adjudicating authority to consider the e-mail communicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
