9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x etc. This led to the dispute about appellant s admissibility of the deductions claimed and also whether the appellants were eligible to file the pricelist under Part-VII at all. Show cause notice and adjudication process culminated in issue of adjudication order on 19-4-1993 and another consequential order finalizing RT-12 return dated 22-9-1993 by the Range Superintendent. Both these orders were challenged by the appellants and once again the matter came back to the original adjudicating authority to re-quantify the duty liability and the deductions claimed by the appellants were also allowed at different stages as stated in the order in original. The period involved in the earlier show cause notice was from 1-4-1989 to 31-3-1993 and ano ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis of goods cleared during the period from 1-4-1989 to 13-6-1993 and transactions are not different. Central Excise assessment is made the basis on the transaction and only for the purpose of determination of eligibility for refund and to demand the duty payable, admissibility of deduction and calculation of raw material cost cannot be treated separately in respect of the same transactions as had been done by the Revenue. He also submits that based on the adjudication order passed in April 1993, the Range officer finalized RT-11 returns in Sept. 1993 and therefore both of them have been challenged together. He also, therefore submits that this is not a case of adjustment of refund against duty payable by the respondent but a case of fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e limit for demand is also true and therefore, the case has to be treated as provisional assessment. In para 9 of his order, he has stated I assess finally RT-12 April 1989 to March 1993...... . We also agree with the ld. advocate that transaction cannot be split to treat liability as different and refund as different. There is no dispute that the appellants have collected transaction value and therefore, the refund and the demand arise from the same transaction. In view of the above discussions, the amount payable of Rs. 89,68,771/- has to be adjusted against the refund due to the appellants and accordingly, we set aside the impugned order with consequential relief to the appellants. (Pronounced in the Court on 17 Dec. 2008) - - TaxT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
