9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Appellant Shri B. K. Singh , Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER The present appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 106/Kol-I/2018 dated 27.06.2018 wherein the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the demand of Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs.43,666/- confirmed vide Order-in-Original No.04/AC/Coss/Kol-I/16-17 dated 07.12.2016. 2. The appellant submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty has also been imposed as penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the same vide the impugned order. 2.1. He submits that for the Financial Year 2014-15, prior to taking registration, they have made many clearances to industrial customers for which assessment based on Maximum Retail Price (MRP) is not applicable. He submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order. 4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal documents. 5. On perusal of the documents submitted by the Appellant, I find that the claim made by the appellant is substantiated with documentary evidence. I find that the clearances made to industrial customers is also included while computing the duty demanded in the impugned order. Since MRP based assessment is not applicable to clearances m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
