2001 (1) TMI 333

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lant. S/Shri Arun Chopra and G.R. Dev, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - The duty of Rs. 10.35 lakhs has been demanded and penalty of equal amount imposed on the ground that subsequent to amendment of Section 4 of the Act in 1996, that part of the price of the goods sold by the applicant from its depot which is representative of equalised freight is not e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he bench took the view that it would not be possible to have the matter decided and orders signed before 2nd February, 2001, when Mr. J.N. Srinivasa Murthy, one of the members of the bench retires from service. Therefore, in order to avoid both sides having to reargue the matter, it was decided to adjourn the hearing to 7-2-2001. 5. The counsel for the applicant says that on this issue the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lection of revenue. The counsel for the applicant cites before us various orders of this Tribunal of which we cite the case in CCE v. Karna Industries Ltd. - 1991 (53) E.L.T. 566 permitting the course that he requests. Therefore, on the unusual facts of this case, in addition to waiving deposit and staying their recovery, we direct the department not to proceed with adjudication of notices, or rec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....actory gate to the depot should form part of the assessable value. 3. The Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) have declined to accept the applicability of the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 24 of the judgment in Government of India v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433 for the reason that the position in law has changed. We are prima facie unab....