Appeal allowed due to calculation error, liability reduced. Another appeal dismissed, excess duty adjusted. Technical grounds not sustainable.

The Tribunal allowed Appeal No. 50866 of 2021 due to a calculation error, reducing the appellant's liability to Rs. 1,01,705.70 instead of Rs. 10,39,750/-. Appeal No. 50867 of 2021 was dismissed as no calculation error was found, and the excess duty paid was appropriately adjusted. The Tribunal held that technical grounds raised were not sustainable to set aside the Order-in-Appeal, ultimately upholding the judgment.

---

---

Issues:
1. Provisional assessment on goods transferred to branches for research and development and as free samples.
2. Recovery of amount from appellant for irregularly availing provisional assessment.
3. Appeal challenging Order-in-Appeal on technical grounds.
4. Error in calculation for differential duty amount.
5. Excess duty already paid by the appellant.
6. Competence of Commissioner (Appeals) during pendency of SVLDRS application.
7. Time-bar issue regarding communication of adjudication order.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing electric energy meters and gas meters, requested provisional assessment for goods transferred to branches. Department alleged irregular use of provisional assessment for goods not used in further manufacture but for research and free samples. A recovery of Rs. 10,39,750/- was proposed, confirmed in Order-in-Original No. 45/2020.

2. The appeal challenged the Order-in-Appeal on technical grounds, including the timing of passing the order and compliance with Circular No. 1053/2/2017. Additionally, an error in the calculation of differential duty amount was raised, stating the failure to set off the excess duty already paid by the appellant.

3. The Tribunal observed that the excess duty paid by the appellant was not properly adjusted in the differential duty demand. In Appeal No. 50866 of 2021, the appellant was found liable to pay only Rs. 1,01,705.70 instead of the confirmed Rs. 10,39,750/-. However, in Appeal No. 50867 of 2021, the excess duty paid was appropriately adjusted, and the order was sustained.

4. Regarding the technical issues raised, the Tribunal held that the SVLDRS scheme did not require a stay of pending proceedings, and the time-bar issue from Circular No. 1053/2/2017 was found to be ambiguous. The Tribunal concluded that the technical grounds were not sustainable to set aside the Order-in-Appeal.

5. Ultimately, Appeal No. 50866 of 2021 was allowed due to the calculation error, reducing the appellant's liability. Appeal No. 50867 of 2021 was dismissed as no calculation error was found. The judgment was pronounced accordingly.

---