9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (8) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved at. The period of dispute is from 2-4-1975 to 30-9-1975. 2. On 1-4-1975, the appellants filed two Price Lists dated 31-3-1975 for approval of the Assistant Collector. At the bottom of the Price Lists, the appellants appended the following remarks :- "Remarks. - While on this we would mention that this is without prejudice to our right to file a revised price list bases on the Supreme Court decision on assessable value in the Voltas Case viz., Manufacturing Cost plus Manufacturing Profit." On 11/17-11-1975, the Assistant Collector approved the two Price Lists as submitted, without saying anything about the above Remarks. 3. The appellants started paying duty on the basis of approved values under protest, in accordance with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould get a part refund towards such of the deductions as have been allowed by the Supreme Court. The prayer is opposed by the learned representative of the department on the grounds that the Asstt. Collector had no power to review his own orders of price approval and that on account of the appellants failure to appeal to the Appellate Collector in time against the Assistant Collector's said orders, the said orders had become final. In, support of his proposition, the following earlier orders of the Tribunal are cited by the learned representative of the department :- (1) 1987 (29) E.L.T. - 933 (Tribunal) - Modi Rayon and Silk Mills. (2) 1987 (30) E.L.T. - 454 (Tribunal) - Herschel Rubber (Pvt.) Ltd. 5. On careful consideration, we f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim post-manufacturing expenses and kept that right alive by paying duty under protest, as no stage of the proceedings the Assistant Collector said anything whatsoever to rule out their right or dispose of their protest. We are not impressed by the plea made by the learned representative of the department that the fact of Assistant Collector's approval of the prices as declared by the appellants should be taken as implying the rejection of their claim for post-manufacturing expenses. The facts do not lead to any such. implied rejection. The facts, on the contrary, are that the Assistant Collector did not apply his mind to the question of post-manufacturing expenses at all while approving the Price Lists. He passed no order on post-manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
