9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (1) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r packing their products viz. Chloromethanes and Caustic Soda Products. The appellants were not including the cost of metal containers in the assessable value of the final products till it was decided by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Salem Division vide C. No. V/Ch. 29/17/148/86 dated 31-12-1987 that the value of the drums should be included in the assessable value of Chloromethane products. The appellants started including the value of drums in the assessable value of Chloromethane products with effect from 1-3-1986 and paid the entire differential duty on 28-10-1988 (for the period 1-3-1986 to 3-3-1988) as stated in the appeal. However as per the Assistant Collector, the appellants started to include the cost of packing in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred by limitation. He has also held that the subsequent letter dated 30-11-1988 of the appellant to the Superintendent and the reply of the Superintendent dated 6-11-1989 reiterating the same position was only a device to get over the angle of limitation. 2. The learned Advocate for the appellants pleaded that the appellants have filed the necessary declaration as required under Rule 57G showing metal containers as input for the notified finished product under Rule 57A. They however, were not availing any benefit of the Modvat credit in respect of duty paid on the metal containers as the appellants were not including the value of the containers in the assessable value of the finished product and which the appellants proceeded to include ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he could not refer us to any such provision and stated that as an abundant precaution the appellants had proceeded to apply for permission and since the Superintendent did not give them the permission vide his letter dated 12-7-1988 they again approached him clarifying their stand and the Superintendent thereafter again informed them by his letter dated 6-11-1989 that they will be eligible to avail Modvat credit as the duty in question had been paid by them only in the year 1988. At this stage we asked the learned Advocate as to whether the Superintendent was a competent officer under the law to refuse permission to avail Modvat credit, he could not in this connection refer us to any notificaton or trade notices under which the Superintende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luded or had not been included in the assessable value of the final product. At the time the appellants cleared the finished products during the year 1986-87 till they paid the duty in 1988 they were not including the value of the containers in the value of the finished product and the appellants would not be eligible to take Modvat credit during this period. But once the autho- rities decided the issue in favour of the Revenue that the cost of the containers was to be included in the assessable value and the appellants paid the duty required to be paid, the appellants eligibility will have to be reckoned for the Modvat credit right from the time the duty came to be charged in respect of the value of the containers along with the value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
