9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Joint Plant Committee. Under this factual matrix department was not right in asking the appellant to provide certain information on production 6,35,26,796/- based on remittances made to JPC based on certain receipts issued by JPC without supported by a chartered / cost accountant certificate. It is also observed from Para- 5 of Stay order passed by this bench that department had ample powers under the statute to Summon 6,35,26,796/-. For this purpose alone the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority as demand of 11, 17, 74,702/- calculated by the department is not sustainable. Needles to say that an opportunity of personal hearing should be extended to the appellant to substantiate their claim based on documents / certifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 002 146 (ELT) 3 (S.C), held as follows:- "The elements required to be added, as per the decision of the Joint Plant Committee (JPC), as notified by a notification dated 7th April 1971, as amended by the notification dated 16th January 2002, were not admissible deductions under section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and as such, had to be included in determining the assessable values of the specified iron and steel products for the purpose of payment of Central Excise duty thereon." 2.1 Only with respect to correct quantification of duty, by including JPC levies into the assessable value, the matter was remanded by Apex Court to CESTAT & vide order NO. A-396-398/KOL/06 dt 25/5/06 CESTAT remanded the case to the Adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applies, does not appear to have been taken by Tisco. For some products it was not taken at all. This was to be corrected. (iv) For the period April -94 to August- 94 very few articles have been taken into consideration, while as per JPC minutes, it appears to apply to all articles mentioned in the Annexure -II, III & IV to the minutes. (v) For Chapter 86 goods there was no dispute and Tiscos figures matched with Department figs. (vi) For Chapter 72 goods, during the period March 93 to April 93 also there appears to be no dispute as regards duty liability is concerned. (vii) During the period March -92 to August -94, you had agreed to produce evidence of remittance made to JPC, which would b of great help in arriving at the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required to remit JPC levies to the Joint Plant Committee. Under this factual matrix department was not right in asking the appellant to provide certain information on production & clearances made or to calculate JPC levies from the figures available in the periodical RT-12 returns filed with the department. What is required to be added to the assessable value as per the judgement delivered by the Apex Court is the JPC levies remitted to the JPC. If there was any short payment of JPC levies then JPC could have asked the appellant to remit the same but department can not calculate a figure to add to the assessable value on their own based on RT-12 returns. Appellant has calculated on amount of ₹ 6,35,26,796/- based on remittances made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
