9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to May, 1989. The Assistant Collector decided these two notices vide his order dated 1-2-1990 dropping the proceedings initiated and permitting the deductions as claimed. On 1-2-90 department filed an appeal and vide order dated 25-11-91, the Collector (Appeals) remanded the matter for de novo determination of the values in line with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints. In the de novo proceedings order dated 5-8-92, was issued by the Assistant Commissioner directing the appellants to file a price-list based on cost of raw-material. Job work charges, manufacturing expenses as required by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ujagar Prints. In the mean time, price-lists for the period 1-4-88 to 31-3-89 were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Superintendent of Central Excise SRP-1 Range -You are directed to undertake provisional assessments of the R.T. 12s pertaining to the period in question i.e. from October, 1990 and direct the assessee to file revised price lists within 10 days of receipt of this letter. Sd/- (N.K.P. Prasada) Assistant Collector" 2. The appellants filed revised documents. However, they were issued another notice dated 7-2-97 by the Assistant Commissioner holding that on finalisation of the provisional assessment for the valuation of biscuits for the period April, 96 to March, 98 there was a differential duty of Rs. 1,01,01,940/- which was de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missed the appeal and confirmed the demands as raised after relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Samrat International Ltd. [1992 (58) E.L.T. 561 (S.C.)] and of the Larger Bench in the case of Rajiv Mardia [2001 (129) E.L.T. (334)] and held that the assessments in this case cannot be considered as final and therefore, duties as demanded were required to be paid and upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Hence, this appeal. 5. After hearing both sides and considering the material on record, it is found - (a) The short-point that arises in this case is whether the assessments during the subject period were provisional or final and if they were not provisional, the demands could not h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation or there was an order made under Rule 9B empowering the clearance on the basis of such provisional classification. In the absence of the same, we cannot accept the argument of the revenue that in fact the order of the Assistant Collector dated 21-1-1976 is a provisional order based on which clearance was made by the appellants or that they paid duty on that basis. On the contrary, as held by the Judicial Member the said order of classification was a final order, therefore, the Revenue cannot contend the limitation prescribed under Section 11A does not apply." Applying the tests of the Hon'ble Apex Courts, as laid down in Para 14, extracted herein above, it is essential to find out in this case whether there was an order under Rule 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Price Lists to be assessed for the relevant period have been approved by the Assistant Commissioner, as per the report of the Commissioner produced by SDR, it is apparent that there is no pending list for approval, as also the order dated 5-2-93, relied by Revenue, cannot be construed as an order on which the goods were to be cleared on provisional basis. Since, the provisional clearances effected as per this order, would be only prospective and not covered the clearance prior to the date of issue of the said order. The endorsement in the said order dated 5-2-93 is to keep the RT-12 assessments for the month of October, 90 to be made as provisional would be for goods already cleared and not to be cleared. It is therefore not consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
