1997 (2) TMI 323 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Delay in filing appeals and condonation of delay.
- Inclusion of interest on receivables in assessable value.
- Right to file appeal vs. refund claim.
- Proper application of Rule 173C(11) of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
- Reassessment of duty based on Supreme Court decision and statutory provisions.

Analysis:
1. Delay in filing appeals and condonation of delay:
The appellant failed to file all necessary appeals initially, leading to a delay in filing three supplementary appeals. The Tribunal, considering it a mere omission, condoned the delay in filing the later appeals to ensure all issues are addressed comprehensively.

2. Inclusion of interest on receivables in assessable value:
The appellant contended that interest on receivables should not be included in the assessable value for finalizing assessments on RT 12 Returns. The Collector (Appeals) dismissed the appeals, stating that the appellant should have filed refund claims instead. However, the Tribunal disagreed, emphasizing that the appellant had the right to appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

3. Right to file appeal vs. refund claim:
The Tribunal clarified that an assessee entitled to file a refund claim can also file an appeal against an assessment order. The completion of assessment by the Superintendent on the RT 12 Return is considered an assessment decision, allowing the appellant to challenge it through an appeal.

4. Proper application of Rule 173C(11) of Central Excise Rules, 1944:
The Tribunal highlighted the provisions of Rule 173C(11) which allow for reassessment of duty if the declared price does not align with the value determined under the Central Excise Act, 1944. In this case, the Superintendent failed to carry out reassessment as required, making the appellant an aggrieved person entitled to file an appeal.

5. Reassessment of duty based on Supreme Court decision and statutory provisions:
The Tribunal directed the appropriate authority to pass fresh assessment orders, considering the appellant's plea that assessable value should exclude interest on receivables. The duty payable should be recalculated, and if excess duty was paid, appropriate relief should be granted to the appellant in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders, and instructed a reevaluation of the duty assessment, emphasizing the correct application of statutory provisions and the appellant's right to appeal against assessment decisions.