9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1/82, dated 23-10-1982 and was classifiable under Tariff Item 15A(2) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. With the introduction of the new Tariff, the appellants filed a classification list claiming classification of the product under sub-heading 3922.90 and also at the same time claiming the benefit of Notification 132/86. This classification list was approved by the Assistant Collector. The appellants applied for refund of Rs. 3,03,129.04 and the refund was sanctioned except for an amount of Rs. 55,676.76. This order of sanction of refund was reviewed by the Collector and an appeal was filed with the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) held that the product was classifiable under sub-heading 3920.31. A show cause notice was i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants were availing the benefit of Notification No. 231/82, dated 23-10-1982 upto 28-2-1986 and since these clearances upto 28-2-1986 were not to be counted for the purpose of calculating the aggregate value of clearances for the financial year 1985-86, the only period for which clearances were to be calculated was the month of March, 1986. He submitted that the admitted position was that during the month of March, 1986, the aggregate cum-duty value of clearances amounted to Rs. 8,76,703.28. It was also argued that the appellant was sanctioned a refund of Rs. 1,71,197.22 by cheque and Rs. 76,254.56 in Modvat. Learned Counsel for the appellants, therefore, pleaded that for the purpose of determining value the relevant Section was Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earances is cum-duty price or inclusive of duty then both in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) as also in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. MRF, the duty paid is to be excluded for arriving at the aggregate value of clearances for the purpose of allowing the benefit of Notification No. 175/86. In the instant case, there is no dispute about the aggregate value being inclusive of duty. However, from the facts on record, we find that duty was actually paid and refunded. We hold that in the circumstances mentioned above, duty paid and its inclusion in the aggregate value is proved and in the circumstances, we hold that duty shall be deductible or excluded from the cum-duty value. 7. The third point that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
