9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present appellants were collecting job charges/processing charges at a higher rate than was declared in the declarations filed by the merchants manufacturers. A show cause notice dated 19-2-1991 was issued seeking recovery of differential duty amounting to Rs. 8,82,302.13 as also seeking to impose penalty on the present appellants. It was further alleged that land, building etc. were liable to confiscation under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In his impugned order, the Collector confirmed the demand and imposed penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/-, confiscated land, building etc. but permitted their redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. This appeal arises before us out of this order. 2. Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate, arguing f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ired to declare correctly all the charges received by them; that under-statement of the charges has resulted in lower slab of duty since the notification prescribes the rate of duty as per value of the processed fabrics. On this ground, he supported the lower orders. 3. We have carefully gone through the rival submissions and have seen the declarations. 4. In his order, the Collector observed that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints the value of the processed fabrics should be the combination of cost of raw materials, job charges and processor s profit. It was his belief that where job charge has been under-declared the differential duty is leviable. The perusal of the clarificatory judgment in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Lili Foam Industries (P) Ltd. - 1990 (46) E.L.T. 462. We have perused this judgment. Para 24 reads as under :- We have already held that the value of the top skin, bottom skin, side skin and the shreddings are to be increased. The learned Departmental Representative, during the course of the arguments, submitted that the proceedings in the instant case do not call for a finding on the rate of duty applicable on the side skin, bottom skin, top skin and the shreddings. He argued that the appellants had paid duty according to the approved classification list and the present proceedings cannot be used by them to question the correctness of the rate of duty applied. However, we find that the appellants had raised the issue of classification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should not be permitted to raise the dispute regarding determination of rate of duty. 7. We find that the principles enumerated by judgment hold good in the present case also. 8. Shri Sangia submitted that whereas the reliance has been placed on illustrative declaration showing trader s profit to be included in the assessable value, it may be necessary to refer the case back to the Collector to verify whether in all these cases covered by the show cause notice this situation prevailed or not. The learned Advocate in this connection referred to Para 28 of their reply to the show cause notice dated 27-4-1991 in which a categorical claim was made that during the period covered under the show cause notice the assessments were made on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
