9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent when the appellant was selling blockboards inclusive of Central Excise duty it was obligatory on the part of the Assistant Commissioner to deduct the amount of Central Excise duty payable by the appellant and to thereafter arrive at the assessable value and consequently the amount of Central Excise duty payable on the subject goods. This relevant factor which would have substantially reduced the impugned demand in, inter alia, the case covered by the Appeal No. 316/97 (360/97 - correct number as pointed out by ld. Advocate) was not taken into account by the lower adjudicating authority thereby vitiating the said order and consequent order of the Appellate Authority. (ii) Further, the appellant was entitled to benefit of Modvat credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... points. Now, that the liability has been upheld against the appellants, these two points should be considered by the original authority. We further observe that this matter has been hanging fire for the last twelve years. The matter has gone right up to the Hon ble Supreme Court. Judgment has been delivered in 1995 by the Apex Court and yet the appellants have not discharged any duty liability. Accordingly, we are of the view that the appellants should submit the evidence before the original authority on the aforesaid two points, so that the Assistant Commissioner can determine the liability on those two points reducing the final duty liability in terms of the Tribunal s order to the extent permissible in law. We, therefore, add one para (P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sification List. (9) However, in paragraphs 11.2 and 8.3.10 of the said order it has been observed that the same Classification List, i.e., classification list dated 6th July 1989, remained provisional and was correctly approved finally by the Assistant Commissioner on 2nd June 1995. It is submitted that this finding is, in the light of the findings of this Hon ble Tribunal as contained in paragraph 10.5.3 of the said order, a mistake apparent from the record which also need to be rectified and consequent modification of the said order have to be made accordingly. 6.After having heard both sides, we do not find much substance in this plea of the ld. Advocate, provisional assessment under Rule 9B ultimately envisaged final assessment. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inter alia, with the aspects of demand being time barred. He, therefore, submits that these submissions have no effect on the Tribunal s order dated 29-6-1998. 9.We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We observe that the Tribunal took note of the submissions of the appellants in paras 8.2.1 8.2.2 relating to the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner regarding finalisation of all classification lists. We agree with the submissions of the ld. Advocate, Shri P.K. Dutta that the Tribunal, in its order dated 29-6-1998 has dealt with all classification lists independently. The point argued by the appellants is merely an empty formality when, soonafter, the appellants were issued the show cause notices under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
