9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present appeal relates to the two purchase orders dated 3-8-92 and 9-4-92 placed by the Ministry of Railways upon the appellants under which the contract price for the sleepers was finalised. While finalising the price, the Modvat credit available to the appellant in respect of the various inputs was also taken into consideration. The Commissioner in his impugned order has held that such Modvat credit availed by the appellants on its inputs is liable to be included in the assessable value of its final product. 2. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant in support of the stay petition. We find that the issue is already settled in favour of the appellants by the earlier decisions of the Tribunal. As suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in 1990 (112) E.L.T. 353 - CCE v. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. Following the above judgment even the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise Customs by his order dated 22-6-2000 has dropped the demands raised against the appellants on the identical issues and in respect of the same contracts. The said order by Deputy Commissioner has not been challenged by the Revenue authorities. Even the Tribunal s orders have been accepted and as per the appellants belief Board s letter dated 6-6-2000 addressed to the Commissioner took the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case filing of any appeal against Tribunal s orders dated 11-2-2000 was not warranted. 5. Ld. Advocate submits that again a demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner has dropped the demand by following the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. Inasmuch as the issue is fully settled on the point that the Modvat credit availed by the appellants cannot be added to the contract price between the appellant and the railways, we do not find any justification in the impugned order of the Commissioner. There is no evidence on record that there is any flowback of money from the appellants to the railways, thus justifying the enhancement of the assessable value. We also find a lot of force in the appellants stand on the point limitation. The Revenue was not justified in invoking the longer period of limitation when earlier the dispute in respect of the same purchase or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
