9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 832X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Respondent : Shri Yogendra Aldak, learned counsel ORDER IA.No.2832/2019 taken up. 02-There is a delay of 20 days in filing the appeal. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the delay stands condoned. 03-Arguments heard. 04-The present appeal has been filed by the Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise being aggrieved by order dated 18/05/2018 passed in Excise Appeal No.E/50287/2017. 05-The facts of the case reveal that M/s. Bhagirath Coach and Metals Fabricators Pvt. Ltd., a Company engaged in the manufacture of Motor Vehicle for transport of goods, body of motor vehicles, which attracts Central Excise Duty as per Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant is a job worker for M/s. Volvo Eicher Commercial Vehicles Ltd. 06-Undisputedly, M/s. Volvo Eicher Commercial Vehicles Ltd. was supplying chassis and other material to M/s. Bhagirath Coach and Metals Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. (assessee) to assessee and the assessee availed CENVAT credit of duty paid on chassis and other raw materials recovered from Volvo. During the period of disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount as the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, deem fit, binding the assessee for payment of difference between the amount of duty as may be finally assessed and the amount of duty provisionally assessed. (3) The Assistant Commissioner ofCentral Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, shall pass order for final assessment, as soon as may be, after the relevant information, as may be required for finalizing the assessment, is available, but within a period not exceeding six months from the date of the communication of the order issued under sub-rule (1): Provided that the period specified in this sub-rule may, on sufficient cause being shown and the reasons to be recorded in writing, be extended by the [Principal Commissioner of Central Excise or Commissioner of Central, as the case may be] for a further period not exceeding six months and by the [Principal Chief Commissioner of Central Excise or Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be] for such further period as he may deem fit. (4) The assessee shall be liable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of such goods sold from such other place at or about the same time and, where such goods are not sold at or about the same time, at the time nearest to the time of removal of said goods from the factory of job-worker; (iii)in a case not covered under clause (i) or (ii), the provisions of foregoing rules, wherever applicable, shall mutatis mutandis apply for determination of the value of the excisable goods : Provided that the cost of transportation, if any, from the premises, wherefrom the goods are sold, to the place of delivery shall not be included in the value of excisable goods. Explanation. - For the purposes of this rule, job-worker means a person engaged in the manufacture or production of goods on behalf of a principal manufacturer, from any inputs or goods supplied by the said principal manufacturer or by any other person authorised by him. 11-The Division Bench of this Court in Central Excise Appeal No.13/2019 has dealt with similar controversy involved in the matter and has arrived at a conclusion that no substantial question of law arises in the matter. The question of law framed by the co-ordinate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or Rules made thereunder which permits the assessee such adjustment of any excess duty paid during the month with the duty short paid in other months. It is urged that the exception is only where the assessments are provisional. 10. Thus the principle of Provisional Assessment as contained in Rule 7 of the Rules 2002 are being ushered in to find fault with the methodology the assessee had adopted for adjustment of excess payment of duty with the duty short paid in some months within same year, which in the present case in our considered, will not be attracted because the assessment has been final. In view whereof the decision by Full Bench of the Tribunal in Excel Rubber Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2011 (268) ELT 419 relied by the appellant is of no help to the Revenue because the same borders around Rule 7, which apparently is not attracted in the present case. 11. In the case at hand, the Tribunal has relied on its own decision in Essar Steel India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur-2017 (345) ELT 139, wherein while dwelling on the issue of quantification of duty, it is held: 10. The appellant has claimed that they have already pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
