9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (1) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 177 (S.C.) became known, the appellants addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Central Excise in-charge of their factory on 15.2.1973 indicating that all payments of excise duty on post-manufacturing expenses would be under protest. On 13.6.1973, they filed two price lists for approval. The price lists contained a Note in the following terms :- Note : The above price list include the selling cost and expenses also on which the excise duty is not payable. We are working out portion of such selling expenses and will intimate you later on. The excise duty is leviable on the manufacturing cost and manufacturing profits only . On the same day, the Superintendent returned the price lists to them saying that:- It cannot be accepted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om SASMIRA. The clarification was in favour of the appellants. Thereafter, the refund claims filed by the appellants were rejected by the Assistant Collector and later by the Appellate Collector on the ground that prices of the appellant s fabrics at the factory gate were ascertainable, that only trade discount could be abated from the price and post-manufacturing expenses, which were not shown separately in the sale invoices, were not admissible for deduction. The appellants then filed a consolidated Revision Application before the Central Government which, on transfer of the proceedings to this Tribunal has now become the present main appeal. The remaining 46 appeals were filed by the appellants as supplementary appeals, since the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 13.6.1973 and the Assistant Collector s orders of finalisation of provisional assessments dated 30/31.5.1978, these orders became final and, therefore, no refund on account of post-manufacturing expenses could accrue to the appellants. The learned representative of the department relied on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Haji Hasan Dada - AIR 1966 S.C. 905 for his proposition that the Superintendent and the Assistant Collector had no power to review their own orders of assessment and unless their orders of assessment were vacated by the competent authority, the Appellate Collector, the assessments could not be re-opened the refund granted to the appellants under Rule 11 of the Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion at a later stage as per your note on the body of the price list . In other words, the Superintendent wanted the appellants to show the precise elements of expense desired to be deducted in the price list itself and not leave it to be done in future. He did not want to approve the price lists with the vague Note which the appellants had inserted in the price lists for their intention to do something in future. Surely, this letter of the Superintendent could not amount to shutting out before-hand any claim of the appellants on post-manufacturing expenses when such a claim was submitted in precise terms at a future date. The appellants, however, did complain to the next superior administrative authority, the Assistant Collector, on 5.7.197 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
