2004 (12) TMI 612 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay of operation of impugned order.
2. Challenge against remand order of lower appellate authority.
3. Finalization of assessment based on revised prices.
4. Provisional assessment and refund claim.
5. Discrepancy in direction given by Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed for a stay of the impugned order, but the tribunal decided that the appeal itself needed to be finally disposed of. The tribunal found that the appellate authority had directed the original authority to finalize the assessment, and both parties had accepted the provisional nature of the assessment. The tribunal concluded that the original authority should finalize the assessment based on the prices declared by the assessee, but without the condition imposed by the lower appellate authority. The tribunal referred to a previous order by the Commissioner (Appeals) that had become final and binding, emphasizing an open remand for finalizing the assessment based on prices fixed by the Oil Companies.

2. The appellant challenged the remand order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds that the direction given to the original authority was not in line with a previous order by the Commissioner (Appeals). The tribunal noted that both orders by the Commissioner (Appeals) related to the same goods, emphasizing that the assessment made at the time of clearance was provisional. The tribunal highlighted that the refund claim could only be considered upon finalization of the assessment, as per the previous binding order, which was not adequately addressed in the impugned order.

3. The tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the assessee to claim a refund if the assessment was finalized at a lower price. The tribunal emphasized the need for finalizing the assessment in accordance with the binding previous order rather than the impugned order. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

This judgment addressed various issues such as the stay of the impugned order, challenges against the remand order, finalization of assessment based on revised prices, provisional assessment, and refund claims. The tribunal emphasized the importance of following previous binding orders and ensuring that assessments are finalized appropriately before considering refund claims.