2007 (12) TMI 163

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der chapter heading 6309.06 attracting duty @ 8%, as claimed by the assessee or under chapter heading 3926 attracting duty @ 25% as proposed by the Department. (b) During the period from August, 1998 to February, 1999, the appellant has cleared the Tarpaulin with total assessable value Rs. 10,82,46,752/- and paid duty @ 8% amounting to Rs. 86,59,842/-. In other words, they have collected a total sum of Rs. 11,69,06,594/- as value plus excise duty from their customers. (c) The commissioner passed order dated 15-2-02 demanding differential duty of Rs. 2,11,26,368/-along with interest besides imposition of penalties. (d) Tribunal vide their order No. 175-177/04B dated 25-2-2004 [2004 (178) E.L.T. 1046 (Tribunal)] held that for part of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d from the date of original order or from the date of de novo order is the another issue. 5. According to the ld. Advocate, the assessable value Rs.10,82,46,752/- should be taken as cum-duty price and the duty liability should have been determined. The interest liability should only from the date of de novo order. 6. Ld. SDR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. We have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. On the first issue, it is noticed that the sales realization by the appellant from their customers consisted of assessable value + excise duty. When the dispute was resolved the rate of duty on which duty became payable got enhanced. If an arrangement existed between the appellant and the buye....