9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (11) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these petitions only with the manufacture of these chemicals at the factory at Kumhari and the payment of excise duty thereon. During the relevant period, the sulphuric acid manufactured by the petitioner-company at Kumhari was used mainly for captive consumption to manufacture fertilizers and other goods and a small part alone was sold as sulphuric acid itself while the entire quantity of oleum manufactured at Kumhari was used for captive consumption to manufacture other goods. The price lists submitted by the petitioner-company showing the assessable value of sulphuric acid and oleum manufactured by it at the Kumhari factory during the relevant period covered by these petitions were approved by the concerned Assistant Collector, Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, 1981 and Exh. 'F' dated 5th October, 1981; and in Misc. Petition No. 311 of 1982, the impugned order passed by the Assistant Collector, respondent No. 2, is Exh. 'A' dated 14th February, 1982. 4. Both these petitions were filed and were also admitted for hearing parties prior to October, 1982 when the extensive amendments made in Chapter VI of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, were brought into force. By the amendment so made, Section 35 of the Act was extensively amended in order to provide for further appeals, reference to the High Court and thereafter a further appeal to the Supreme Court. These petitions were, however, admitted before the provisions for additional remedies made in the Act were brought into force. The learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessable value of sulphuric acid and oleum and his conclusion is based mainly on the fact that the assessable value for the same goods manufactured at the Ambarnath factory, which is at a considerable distance from Kumhari, was higher at the same time. In our opinion, this fact alone was not sufficient to reject the points raised by the petitioner-company in reply to the show cause notices issued to it for reassessment of the assessable value. The result, therefore, is that the contention of the petitioner-company that no case for reassessment of the assessable value of either sulphuric acid or oleum had been made out after the approval of the price lists by the Assistant Collector was rejected without giving any reasons for the same or me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
