2017 (4) TMI 739

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R. - for the respondent Per Dr. Satish Chandra: The present appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal No.45/2009 dated 27.2.2009. 2. The brief facts of the case are that during the period under consideration (June 2002 to March 2007), the appellant was engaged in the manufacturing of PSTA, Thinner & Pent Acid. The appellant has claimed 40% exemption of duty under Notification No.13/2002....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s) has allowed the benefit of cum duty calculation for determining the actual duty, the duty liability shall be around Rs. 8,51,000/ approximately. 5. ld. DR submits that the filing of declaration under Section 173C was not required during the relevant time. Further, the particulars furnished are factually incorrect and misleading with intention to evade duty. 6. After hearing both the sides....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....adopting the cum duty price. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. In spite of repeated query as to the basis of mentioning MRP for a product for which MRP was not to be mentioned in the packages, ld. Advocate was not able to show from the record any material based on which the MRP was declared to the Department. Therefore, the findings of the lower authorities holdin....