2017 (11) TMI 1095

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(s) ORDER The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order. 2.   The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are clearing certain goods on MRP basis and other goods on payment of duty on assessable value arrived at in terms of Section 4 of Central Excise Act. The issue in this appeal pertains to those products which are subject to duty under Se....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the prices of the appellant were on FOR basis and abatement from the value @ 2% on provisional basis in lieu of freight charge was sought by the appellant. At the end of the year 2005-2006, the final assessable value was determined by the appellants, who paid a differential duty of Rs. 11,92,546/- and interest of Rs. 1,18,199/- on that amount of  differential duty which was paid after the due....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es (approximately). Accordingly, the adjudicating authority demanded the differential duty of Rs. 2,07,48,068/- along with interest. The differential duty and interest already paid by appellant was to be adjusted in the confirmed demand and interest.  4.   Aggrieved from the order of the adjudicating authority, the appellants filed an appeal against the order. The Ld. Commissione....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ees that the matter requires to be remanded in view of the computational discrepancies. 7.   Heard the parties and perused the records. 8.   We find that even though the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of the original authority however, in respect of the submission by the applicant that during the relevant period the duty actually paid by them was Rs. 15,7....