9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (10) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... att, Advocate, and Shri K. Srivastava, learned SDR. 3. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to set out the brief history of the case. The applicants herein filed a price list in Proforma Part I in terms of Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for watch assemblies in respect of sales to dealers in the open market, and also filed another price list in Proforma VI in terms of Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules. In respect of goods captively consumed, the applicants declared the assessable value based on the cost of the input and their profit. The price declared in Part I was much higher than that declared by them in Part VI of the price list. Both the price lists were approved by the authorities, and on the above bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rential duty amount was mentioned). This lacuna was remedied by issue of an additional notice on 24-5-1984 wherein duty amount was computed at Rs. 1,35,68,305.23 for the period 1-1-1981 to 31-1-1983. These two show cause notices were adjudicated by the Assistant Collector who vide Order No. 6/85, dated 22-2-1985 confirmed the demand. In the last paragraph of the Order, the Assistant Collector observed that for the clearances after 1-9-1983 the duty liability should be determined and paid forthwith . In the appeal filed by the assessees against Order No. 6/85, the Collector (Appeals), Madras vide Order dated 24-5-1985 upheld the demand for a period of 6 months prior to the service of notice dated 6-8-1981 and 24-5-1984 - in other words, he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund the amount of Rs. 1,52,95,000/- deposited on 17-6-1986. The application was disposed of vide Miscellaneous Order No. 35/88-A wherein the Tribunal directed the Collector to refund the amount in excess of the amounts required to be deposited in terms of the Tribunal s Order dated 8-1-1986. The refund application filed by the applicants before the Assistant Collector was disposed of by adjustment of the amount in view of the observations in the adjudication order that the duty for the subsequent period is to be determined and paid forthwith. The amount was directed to be adjusted for the period 1-9-1983 to 25-3-1985 in respect of Tariff Item 68 goods and 1-12-1982 to 25-3-1985 in respect of Tariff Item 52 goods. The Assistant Collector ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o costs. The applicants filed the present application pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court reproduced above. 4. Learned Counsel submits that the liability arising out of the show cause notices enumerated in the order of the Supreme Court is only Rs. 9,34,135/- while the applicant has deposited Rs. 2,50,000/- on 14-5-1985 as per deposit ordered by the Collector (Appeals), Rs. 1,49,361/- on 18-11-1986 and Rs. 5,34,774/- also on 18-11-1986 as seen from the communication dated 15-10-1988 received by the learned SDR from the office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-II, and Rs. 1,52,95,000/- and this amount is in excess of the liability arising out of the show cause notices. Therefore, we agree with the applicants that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
