2011 (1) TMI 1318

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 Respondent. ORDER This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner No. 10/Sec. 3A/COMMR/2009, dated 29-1-2009. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The appellants is a manufacturer of Hard rolled products of non-alloy steel falling under Chapter 72. During the disputed period, (19-1-2000 to 31-3-2000) the duty was required to be levied, assessed and discharged in terms of Section 3A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the "d" factor should be 197 and not 158 as declared by them. He ordered fixation of ACP accordingly and consequently ordered for payment of differential duty along with interest. 4. Learned Advocate for the appellants submits that the scheme of assessment prevalent during the relevant period came to an end on 31-3-2000. The department has chosen to conduct verification belatedly in Decemb....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oduced by the appellants are reproduced below :- "11.4.1 Now, I come to the question whether the value of the parameters of the mill found on verification done on 6-12-2000 can be relied upon to determine the ACP in the face of the fact that the scheme stood withdrawn from the notified re-rolled products of iron and steel w.e.f. 1-4-2000? 11.4.4 The assessee have stated that initially....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....has furnished the copies of the aforesaid bills." 6.2 No reason is forthcoming for delayed verification conducted by the officers. When it has been clearly held that the scheme which was in operation has been denotified from 1-4-2000, no obligation exists on the part of the assessee appellant to indicate the changes in "d" factor which, according to them, have happened in June, 2000/July, 20....