2019 (6) TMI 182

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 Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 20.11.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby he has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Gelatin coming under Chapter 35 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On verification of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the capital goods viz. Spectrophotometer, turbine, fork lifts have been cleared after use for more than 15 years and hence, the question of either reversal of credit on depreciated value or demand of duty on transaction value does ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urnished voluntarily by the appellant during the course of audit enquiry. 5. On the other hand, the Learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the Revenue has raised the demand under Rule 3 (5A) of the CCR, 2004 on transaction value on the basis of the invoices produced by the appellant. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rs back as per the appellant, no record is available with the appellant as according to him he is not required to maintain the record beyond 5 years and further, the entire demand appears to be time barred because the SCN was issued on 11.02.2015 for the period 2010-11 and 2011-12. There is no suppression on the part of the appellant with intent to evade payment of duty because the entire demand h....