9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contract entered into between the appellant-company and M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd., the appellants supplied boilers and other equipments required for setting up of a power plant in the premises of M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. during the period October, 1990 to June, 1995. The main equipments were supplied from the Trichy Unit of the appellants and ancillary equipments from their Ranipet Unit. The items supplied by the Ranipet Unit included Electrostatic Precipitators (ESP). All the material requirements for the power plant were to be supplied by the appellant-company under the aforesaid contract and therefore some equipments not manufactured by them were bought-out and directly supplied at the power plant site. This supply is referred to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On the above basis, the Assistant Commissioner calculated the rate per kg. for the above equipments as follows :- Rate per kg = 10,80,97,557.33 = 49,2907 21,93,061.92 At this rate per kg, the Assistant Commissioner calculated the amount of duty leviable on the goods and, on that basis, demanded differential duty [the provisional rate per kg. being less than 49.2907]. Aggrieved by such finalization of assessment, the party preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), but the latter sustained the decision of the lower authority. Hence the present appeal of the assessee. 4. In the present appeal, the only grievance against the above finalization of assessment is that the total weight ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt in respect of ESP should be considered to have been finalized. This is the reason why the Assistant Commissioner excluded the weight and value of ESP from reckoning in the context of finalizing the provisional assessments. 7. As rightly submitted by learned counsel, in the finalization of the provisional assessments in respect of the boilers and other equipments (including ESP) supplied to M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. by the appellant s Trichy and Ranipet Units, it was not open to the assessing authority to keep out any part of the goods which were subjected to provisional assessment. The mere fact that the buyer of ESP obtained refund of a part of the duty paid by them on the goods would not constitute valid reason to exclude such good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... encompasses assessment of goods manufactured and cleared by both the Units of the appellants where such goods are supplied to the same customer under the same contract. It appears, all other aspects (including classification) of assessment have been taken care of under the procedure laid down by the Commissioner and there is no room for dispute on such aspects. 8. Reverting to the case on hand, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remand the matter to the original authority for de novo finalization of the provisional assessments without excluding the weight and value of ESP. It goes without saying that the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeal stands allowed by way of remand. (Dicta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
