9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (6) TMI 347 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
- Disallowance of deductions in the assessable value of goods - Demand of duty for the same period after finalization of assessment - Interpretation of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act - Applicability of judicial decisions on challenging assessment orders Analysis: The appellant appealed against the Order-in-Appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) where certain deductions in the assessable value of goods were disallowed by the Revenue. The appellant argued that they cleared goods based on provisional assessment from March 1997 to March 1998, and after finalization of assessment on 29-9-98, paid the demanded amounts. They contended that the Revenue cannot demand duty for the same period after finalizing the assessment. The appellant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in CCE v. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue, on the other hand, cited the Supreme Court decision in Easland Combines v. Collector of Central Excise, stating that under Section 11A, authorities can correct errors in assessment within a year. In this case, a show cause notice was issued under Section 11A for demanding duty by disallowing deductions claimed by the appellant. The appellant argued that duty cannot be demanded for the same period after finalizing the provisional assessment. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's reliance on the Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. case was not applicable here. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's ruling that challenging an assessment is necessary before filing a refund claim. The amended Section 11A allows recovery of duties short-levied or short-paid based on any assessment relating to duty rates or valuation of goods. The Tribunal found that the show cause notice was issued within the normal limitation period for recovery of short-paid duty. The appellants did not challenge the impugned order on merits, and the Tribunal concluded that the appellants were not entitled to the claimed deductions. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.
|
