9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (6) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chapter 90 of Central Excise Tariff Act. During the period 1992-93 to 1995-96, sun glasses were exempt from excise duty. The intermediate products, namely, plated fronts, plated temples and sun glasses were excisable items. Valuation of these parts during the above period is the dispute involved in this appeal. 2. For the different financial years, namely, 1992-93 to 1995-96, the plated fronts, plated temples and sun glass lenses were valued by the appellant and duty paid. The respective value fixed by the manufacturer for the above periods can be discerned from the annexure to the order-in-original. First column in the annexure makes mention of the value fixed by the manufacturer on which duty was paid per unit. This payment of duty wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was virtually in consonance with the cost given by the manufacturer, as could be seen from the annexure to the order-in-original passed by the adjudicating authority. Curiously, the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur (an officer senior in rank to the adjudicating authority, the Assistant Commissioner) remitted the report to M/s. Rakesh Singh Company stating that the report submitted is not correctly reflecting the cost of production. The Additional Commissioner requested the Cost Accountant to suitably recast to reflect the correct cost of production. The reason for remitting the report back to the Cost Accountant is not discernible from the letter written by the Addl. Commissioner on 7-7-97. In obedience to the direction given by the Addl. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the order-in-original it is seen that the value given by the manufacturer for different components has been substantially increased relying on the second report of the Cost Accountant. The Cost Accountant has not given the actual cost of each item manufactured by the appellant to enable the department to find out their assessable value. So, the value that is given in the annexure, namely, the second column "value as per special audit report" should not have been adopted by the adjudicating authority. In spite of the strenuous effort made by the learned Departmental Representative, we are clear in our mind that the special audit report submitted by the Cost Accountant is not of any assistance in finding out the assessable value of the inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 55 lakhs. 7. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 8. Before parting with the case, we express our anguish in the manner in which the power under Section 14A of the Act has been misused by the departmental authorities in this case. Section 14A was enacted with the intention to have the controversy between the manufacturer and the department resolved with the help of an independent competent professional Cost Accountant. How that power is subject to misuse is evidenced in the instant case. The report filed by the Cost Accountant was remitted back to him without giving any valid reason. The Cost Accountant obliged the department by submitting a report which is favourable to the department without the backing of any fresh data or mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
