9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and hair oil etc. falling under Chapter 3401.19, 3401.20 and 3305.00 respectively. Besides their own products Margo Soap, they are also manufacturing detergent cakes under the brand names of Regal, Super Check and Check for M/s. Detergents India Ltd., who are the owners of the said brand name products (herein after referred to as DIL). During the period Nov. 95 to August 96 the assessee had manufactured detergent cakes on job work basis to M/s. DIL. For the manufacture of detergent cakes, raw materials had been supplied by M/s. DIL, and the assessee utilised the credit on the raw materials for the payment of duty on detergent manufactured and cleared to M/s. DIL. The assessee had entered into a memorandum of understanding with M/s. DIL on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Aggrieved by the above Order, the assessee went on appeal with Commissioner (A) and appeal was disposed vide Order in Appeal No. 93/98 (M-II) dated 24-3-98, stating that the Assistant Commissioner can t take decision without specifying the proposal for the same in ambiguous terms in the above show cause notice and he cannot decide issue as he has done in the present case. Therefore, I vacate the impugned order. However the Assistant Commissioner is free to issue the revised/fresh show cause notice incorporating all the points on which he may like to decide/adjudicate and after giving sufficient opportunity to the appellants to put forth their defence and also after hearing them he may pass a detailed speaking order. With the above direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice dated 18-7-2001. 3.2 The Assistant Commissioner failed to note that there is no basis for adding 2% to the value of clearances. The appellant was engaged in job work and the assessable value is payable as per the decision in Ujagar Prints v. Union of India - 1988 (38) E.L.T. 535 and the subsequent clarification reported in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 493. Consequently, no addition can be made in terms of alleged Circular dated 31-12-1993. 3.3 It has also been recently held that in the event of any conflict between a Supreme Court or High Court decision and a Circular, the former will prevail. 3.4 The impugned order failed to note that there is no question of including any Additional transport charges or interest/insurance charges. The goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed has been summarily rejected without any discussion by the lower authority. At any rate, he ought to have spelt out why he was rejecting the same and on what basis he was ordering inclusion of 2% towards insurance and interest. It is also submitted that the Chartered Accountant s certificate has been prepared as per well accepted accounting principles and norms and if it was incorrect, the adjudicator must specifically refer to them and refute the same by proper accounting practices. He has neither done that nor examined the Chartered Accountant; hence the order is illegal and should be set aside and the appeal allowed. 5. It is deeply distressing to observe that the lower adjudicating authority has not addressed the allegation levelled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... easoned, self-contained and unambiguous. Every plea should be either accepted or rejected. The validity of an adjudication order can be adjudged only on the basis of reasons given. In Siemens Engg. and Mfg. Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1976 S.C. 1785, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed that it is now settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi judicial function, it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes and it has been laid down by a long line of decisions of the Supreme Court ending with N.N. Desai v. Testeels Ltd. C.A. 245 of 1970 decided on 17-12-95, that every quasi judicial order must be supported by reasons. The Supreme Court has thus laid down in a series of decisions that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nature. They can be considered to be vague and arbitrary. It would not be possible to decide a question of law and facts unless one applies his mind to the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder,... . ..... He shall also be deemed to have acted arbitrarily when he did not at all apply his mind to the various question of law and fact which had been raised by the appellant in the appeal. The Honourable CEGAT in WIPRO Computers Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - 2001 (135) E.L.T. 450 (T) has held, Speaking order - Evidence - An order not discussing evidence submitted by assessee or technical literature or trade opinion a non-speaking order and not a legal order . The Honourable CEGAT in Arbindo Liquors Limited v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
