2017 (1) TMI 797

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 Department None for the Respondent (s) Per Dr. Satish Chandra: The present Appeal is filed by the Revenue against the impugned Order-in-Appeal No.165-CE/GZB/2006 dated 18.10.2006. 2. None is present on behalf of the respondent-assessee. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Polypropylene Multifilament Yarn (PPMFY) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0. As a result, the exemption being availed on PPMFY was disallowed for the reason that intermediate goods used in the manufacture of exempted finished goods were not eligible for exemption. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner confirmed the demand of duty on PPMFY used captively in the manufacture of NWF on the basis of the value declared by the appellants in their RT-12 returns and allowed adjust....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not disclosed the correct assessable value of PPMFY in their RT-12 returns and had thus short paid excise duty amounting to Rs. 13,62,693/- [Rs.11,84,952.00 (BED) and Rs. 1,77,741.00 {AED (T&T)}] during the period April, 1999 to March, 2002. 4. Being issued, the show-cause-notice, the Commissioner has levied the difference of duty amounting to Rs. 1,17,594/-, the Commissioner has passed the fol....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fore the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) who has granted the relief by set aside the Order-in-Original. 6. Being aggrieved, the Department has filed appeal before the Tribunal. 7. With this background, we heard Shri T.K. Sikdar, the learned counsel for the Department. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. 8. After considering the totality of facts & circumstances of the case, it appears that....