9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (2) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned advocate has appeared on behalf of the applicants. He referred to the Order-in-Original dated 23-7-1985 issued on 2-8-1985 where the Assistant Collector had confirmed the demand for Rs. 25,07,513.79. He pleaded that the stay application was filed later on but inadvertently in Col. 9 of the appeal memo it has not been mentioned whether there was quantification of demand. He made a prayer for rectification of the error. Shri Prabhat Kumar, the learned SDR, who has appeared for the respondent, does not object to the oral prayer of the learned advocate for the rectification of the error. After hearing both the sides we accept the prayer and order the correction of Col. 9 where it should be read as Rs. 25,07,513.79. Shri Ravinder Narain pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llips India Ltd., he leaves it to the discretion of the Bench. 3. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The order passed by the Assistant Collector was before the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 306 which is dated 30-9-1985, whereas the Assistant Collector s order is dated 23-7-1985 issued on 2-8-1985. The Collector (Appeals) s observation was that the provisional assessment order is not appealable. Right of filing of an appeal is being vested by the statute. Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which vests with the right of filing of appeal is reproduced below : Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder. The word adjudicating" should be read in a wider and popular sense keeping in view the scheme of the Act. The scheme of the Act prior to insertion of Chapter VIA by the Finance Act No. 2/80 was that every order or decision passed under the Act was appealable to the Collector of Appeals, Board or to the Government of India and subsequently, after the insertion of Chapter VIA. I am of the view that all such orders or decisions are appealable to the Tribunal, especially, where all the orders are appealable to Collector (Appeals) as per provisions of present Section 35 read with Sections 35 and 35B(l)(b)". Shri Ravinder Narain has cited a decision of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Nayek Paper Industries Pvt, Ltd. v. Uni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the levy, however, the statute has given an extended meaning to the expression value in clause (d) of sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Act. Plainly, the extension must be strictly construed, for what is being included in the value now is something beyond the value of the manufactured commodity itself. In Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. (supra) we observed : It seems to us that the degree of secondary packing which is necessary for putting the excisable article in the condition in which it is generally sold in the wholesale market at the factory gate is the degree of packing whose cost can be included in the value" of the article for the purpose of the excise levy." Is the packing in corrugated fibre board cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
