1987 (3) TMI 242 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the manufacturer.
2. Basis for assessable value.
3. Validity and finality of assessments.
4. Reopening of assessments.
5. Conditions for refund claims.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of the Manufacturer:
The Tribunal examined whether the appellant or M/s. Goodyear was the manufacturer under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The adjudication concluded that M/s. Goodyear was the manufacturer because the goods were manufactured on their behalf, affixed with their trademark, and marketed by them. Additionally, the appellant was restricted from selling the goods to any party other than M/s. Goodyear.

2. Basis for Assessable Value:
The appellant argued that the assessable value should be based on their manufacturing cost and profit, not on the price M/s. Goodyear sold to their customers. The appellant contended that the contract with M/s. Goodyear was at arm's length and the price paid by M/s. Goodyear represented the true manufacturing cost and profit. The Appellate Collector, however, held that the transaction was not at arm's length and that the price paid by M/s. Goodyear included costs like technical assistance, making it more akin to job work. Consequently, the assessable value was determined based on the price at which M/s. Goodyear sold their products.

3. Validity and Finality of Assessments:
The Tribunal noted that assessments had been made based on the previously determined assessable value, which had become final. The appellant's claim for a refund was based on the argument that the earlier assessments were incorrect. However, the Tribunal emphasized that once an assessment becomes final, it cannot be reopened or reviewed unless specific grounds within the stipulated period are met.

4. Reopening of Assessments:
The appellant argued that assessments could be reopened in cases of inadvertence, error, or misconstruction, citing the Supreme Court's rulings in Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. National Tobacco and Andhra Re-rolling Mills v. Union of India. The Tribunal, however, clarified that these rulings were in the context of the rules existing prior to the introduction of the self-removal procedure in 1968. The Tribunal held that under the self-removal procedure and the quasi-judicial determination of classification and assessable value in terms of Rules 173-B and 173-C, such determinations could not be reopened by the same authority.

5. Conditions for Refund Claims:
The Tribunal examined whether a refund could be claimed when the assessments had become final. It was held that a final order of assessment and a refund order inconsistent with it could not coexist. The Tribunal referred to the decision in M/s. Modi Rayon and Silk Mills, where it was held that an assessee who disagrees with a decision on a classification list or price list should challenge it directly by appealing against that decision, not indirectly by filing a refund claim based on that assessment.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the application for a refund could not be sustained as the assessments had become final. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the original determination of the assessable value, focusing instead on the procedural and legal aspects of the finality of assessments and the conditions under which they could be reopened.