2014 (7) TMI 23

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., for the Appellant. Shri R.K. Singla, Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER The issue involved in the appeal is whether the payment of duty made by the assessee at a price not declared by a price which is not covered by declaration filed under Rule 173C for the period from April, 1996 to February, 1997 is not correct and duty is required to be paid at the rate which was declared i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of duty was not the transaction value or did not fulfil the requirements of Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the duty demand could not have been made either on the ground that pricelist was not filed or on any other ground. In this case also, he submits that there is no evidence so show that the value adopted by the appellant did not fulfil the different requirements under Section ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lue to be adopted for payment of duty. 3. The learned AR reiterates the grounds taken in the adjudication order. 4. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that in the absence of any evidence to show that the price/assessable value adopted by the appellant did not fulfil the requirements/conditions under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, me....