9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion for price variation. Some inputs like MCI inserts and HTS Wires are supplied by the Railways. Under two contracts manufacture for the period July, 1992 to June, 1996 were undertaken. Since the contract provided for price variation, a show cause notice dated 1-4-98 was issued by the Superintendent asking the assessee to show cause why a differential duty of about Rs. 35 Lakhs should not be paid by them in respect of the goods cleared from August, 1992 to June, 1996. The demand was confirmed by the Assistant Collector vide his Order-in Original No. 109/98, dated 27-11-98. Dissatisfied with that order the appellants moved the Commissioner (Appeal) and that Commissioner remanded the case vide his Order in Appeal No. 29 (KDT) CE JPR-II 2000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that from the show cause notice to the order-in-appeal price finalization for the entire period of 1992 to 1996 was taken up together. While there was escalation in respect of one item, there was price fall in respect of the other. It is the submission of the assessee s Counsel that it was just and proper that the higher duty in regard to one be set off against the lower duty in respect of the other and net amount alone be made payable. It is contented by the Counsel for the appellants that separate finalization of the assessment for the periods would only create avoidable paper work and hardship to the appellants. He also pointed out that the whole exercise of making separate asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Collector in taking up the assessment for the entire period together. Moreover, his order was passed pursuant to an order of remand by the Commissioner. The direction in that order of remand was to take up the finalization of the assessment for the period 1992-96 based on the documents produced. If the revenue found that order of remand to be incorrect or illegal, they should have taken up that order-in-appeal. Having not done so it was not upon to them to object to the combined finalization of assessments under two contracts for the period 1992-96. Even otherwise we are not able to find any merit in the objection relating to taking up of the assessments under both the contracts together for finalization. All the assessments being provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
