9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 870X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant was not allowed to have provisional assessment and the department now proceeds to demand of duty selectively for periods within the same financial year wherever the value is less than the Rule 8 value and refused adjustment within the same financial year when the value is determined higher than the Rule 8 value. It is apparent that the duty liability as already discharged on the basis of value which is not final. The net excess or shortage will have to be considered. In the present case, admittedly, no refund has been claimed or under consideration for the impugned period even though overall payment by the appellant for the whole year is much higher than the actual liability. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esulting in excess payment of duty. The point of dispute in the present case is whether the overall duty payment for the whole year of 2005-06 can be considered together to arrive at liability of the assessee for duty on captively consumed goods. The lower authorities held that the demand for short payment is correctly made and the excess payment made during part of the same year cannot be adjusted against such short payment. The appellant is aggrieved by such finding and is in appeal. 2. We have heard both sides and perused appeal records. The admitted facts of the case are that during the year 2005-06, the appellants have cleared excisable items for own use, requiring valuation of the said goods in terms of Rule 8 of Central Excise Val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if any, should be taken back only through the provisions of Section 11B. In this context, we note that the appellants have approached the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner on 20.06.2005 itself for a permission for provisional assessment under Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for the financial year 2005-06. The said request was rejected. We note that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) finds such request and subsequent rejection is of no consequence to decide the appellant s liability for duty. We find the reasoning given by the lower authority as devoid of merit. In the present case, the appellant was not allowed to have provisional assessment and the department now proceeds to demand of duty selectively for periods within the same fina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
