1999 (7) TMI 304

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Assistant Commissioner held that the interest notionally accrued on these advances, (but not actually paid) should form part of the assessable value of the goods in respect of such advances is taken. On appeal by the assessee, Commissioner (Appeals) held that the order of the Assistant Commissioner (which incidentally disposed of 14 notices), was bad in law. He, however, remanded the case back to the Assistant Commissioner for a decision afresh after considering the factor of nexus between advances obtained and prices charged, benefit directly or even indirectly enjoyed by the appellant and reference to Section 14A of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944 as per the circular of CBEC dated 27-5-1996 . 3. The Advocate for the appellant co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... L.T. 729 and the circular dated 27-5-1996 of the Board. He finds that the goods were tailor - made and says that the Assistant Commissioner does not cite any evidence to show that the prices were lower than that of comparable goods in respect of which the advance is not taken. He applies the ratio of the Supreme Court judgement in VST Industries v. CCE - 1998 (97) E.L.T. 395. Thereafter he says in paragraph 10 of the order that (the Assistant Commissioner) has not established clearly the nexus required to be established and also extent of benefit derived by the applicant, and therefore the decision is bad in law. The fact that the Commissioner (Appeals) chooses to qualify his finding by saying that the Assistant Commissioner has not clear .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rovides for applying the value of goods sold by the assessee for delivery at any other time nearest to the time of the removal of goods not after making appropriate adjustments. For this rule to apply one would have to exclude the valuation of the goods under Section 4(i)(a) and determine their valuation under 4(i)(b). This, the Assistant Commissioner has failed to do. 8. The contention that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) directing cost audit of the assessee s account under Section 14A of the Act and permitting reliance on material gathered by such audit amounts to commencement of fresh proceedings also has to be accepted. None of this was the material cited in the notices issued. Such a course of action would amount to adjudicat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X