2017 (1) TMI 1226

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 18.1.2016 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of telecommunication equipment which are supplied to BSNL/Department of Telecommunication (DoT) against specific order....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Details Amount in Actuals 1. Provisional value at the time of clearance Rs.28,84,53,757/- 2. Final Value declared under Section 4 without including the value of the software Rs.38,38,17,694/- 3. Value of software (not includible) Rs.13,64,15,618/- 4. Total assessable value under Section 4 Rs.38,38,17,694/- 5. Duty payable @ 16% Adv. Rs.6,14,10,831/- 6. Duty paid on the provisiona....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat credit notes includes the duty component. In the de novo proceedings vide Order-in-Original dated 1.10.2012, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Palakkad sanctioned the refund of Rs. 7,914/- to the appellant but appropriated the same against the arrears of revenue payable by the appellant against certain orders passed by Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Palakkad which have n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....finality. He further submitted that in view of pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, it was not correct on the part of the Department to have initiated coercive action against the appellant by recovering the amount towards interest in a matter which is subjudice before the Tribunal and which has not attained finality. He further submitted that it is a settled law that Department cannot adjus....