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

.... the Respondent Per : S.S GARG The 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 Tele....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he table given below: Sl. No. Clearance 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. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....12 allowed the appeal and directed the Department to refund the amount to the appellants to the extent that 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 ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ise, Palakkad has been confirmed. However, matter is still pending before the Tribunal and has not attained 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....