9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (12) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Dibrugarh was satisfied that the average cost of transportation of 0.37 p per sq. mt. on 1 mm thickness basis from the place of removal to that of delivery of the goods, as worked out by the factory was reasonable and therefore allowed the deduction of the same from the normal sale price of such goods sold by the assessee at their sale centre at Bombay. Later on, however, it was found that as per the sale bill an amount of 0.65 p per sq. mt. on 1 mm thickness basis was realised on account of transportation and other local expenses by the buyers as against the approved deduction of 0.37 p, mentioned supra. The Assistant Collector, therefore, finalised the assessable value by adding the additional amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondents. He submits that the show cause notice is barred by time inasmuch as it has been issued beyond the period of six months which is the time limit spelt out in the third proviso to erstwhile Section 36(2) within which the notice should have been issued. 2.1 To this preliminary objection, the learned SDR, Shri B.S. Ganu for the appellant-Collector has urged that this show cause notice does not seek to levy any duty or demand any short levy or recover any erroneous refund; it is merely a notice to revise the assessable value of the goods which has been fixed at a certain level by the Appellate Collector s order. He submits that there are decisions in his favour that it is not the third proviso to Section 36(2) which would be app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. Tata Mills Ltd.]; (4)1991 (53) E.L.T. 82 [CCE v. Voltas Ltd.]. The learned advocate has further submitted that Tribunal s decision in RMDC s case, mentioned supra also takes into account High Court s judgment in the case of Triveni Sheet Glass. He has also submitted that some of these judgments are of three Members whereas the judgment of the Tribunal in Order No. 1021/90-A, dated 21-6-1990 has been passed by two Members without noticing any earlier judgments of the Tribunal on this point. The learned advocate submits that the effect of the show cause notice, which is now an appeal before the Tribunal is to demand duty from the respondents although it may notice [sic] terms be so and merely speaks of revising the assessable value. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty, that of the Appellate Collector had the effect of nullifying that levy or, in other words, directing no levy. In this background, the effect of adjudication of the Section 36(2) notice issued by the Government against R.M.D.C. would be to restore the levy, in other words, cancelling the order of non-levy. Though the review notice does not talk in terms of short-levy or non-levy the drift is quite clear. It is clearly not meant to pose and answer a question in the abstract: were printed cartons manufactured by R.M.D.C. liable to pay duty under Item 68 CET or were they eligible for exemption in terms of Notification 55/75? The object of the issue of notice was, if ultimately the proceedings led to the conclusion that the goods were liabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
