TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 644
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oods from the factory to various branches on provisional assessment basis. After the stock transfer of their finished goods to their branches the appellants requested for finalization of the provisional assessment. The request was accepted vide the adjudicating order no. 11/2014-15 dated 20.11.2015. However, Department observed that the appellant has irregularly availed the facility of provisional assessment on the goods which were not used for further manufacture of excisable goods but cleared to its branch office for research and development outside the factory of production and as free samples. While forming an opinion that in the given circumstances the appellant was not entitled to invoke the provisions of Rule 7 and even Rule 8 of Cen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hani, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Mahesh Bharadwaj, Authorised Representative for the Department. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has mentioned that both the appeals have been filed praying for setting aside of the impugned Order-in-Appeal on following technical grounds: (i) During the pendency of the adjudication of impugned show cause notice the appellant has applied under Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Redressal Scheme. The outcome was not finalized but the Adjudicating Authority without waiting for the said outcome has passed the impugned order. It is submitted that Commissioner (Appeals) was not competent to pass the order during the pendency of the appellant's application before the Department for the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tial duty amounting to Rs. 9,38,044.30/-. No objection is expressed for setting off the said amount against the differential duty being confirmed and ordered to be recovered vide the order under challenge. However, both the technical grounds raised by the appellant are heavily objected to not to be applicable in the given set of circumstances. Both the appeals are accordingly prayed to be disposed of. 7. After hearing both the parties and perusing the records it is observed that the appellant has no grievance as far as the computation of duty at the time of final assessment of his goods in terms of Rule 11 read with Rule 4 of Valuation Rules instead of Rule 8, thereof. There is no grievance but admission for the differential duty for ent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal No. 50867 of 2021 is concerned. 9. Coming to the technical issues raised with respect to both the appeals, it is held that in the entire scheme of SVLDRS announced vide Finance Act, 2019 there is found no provision requiring the stay of pending proceedings before the Department/Courts/Tribunals during the consideration of the application, if any, filed under SVLDRS Scheme. In absence of such provision, I do not find any merit in the technical argument objecting the competence of Commissioner (Appeals) to adjudicate the appeals during the pendency of the SVLDRS application of the appellant. Similarly, with respect to the time-bar issue as mentioned in Circular No. 1053/2/2017, it is observed that the relevant para 14.10 of said circ....