9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e customers. The appellants filed a pricelists in Part VII for approval by valuing their goods on cost construction method. The pricelists were approved from time to time. There was some dispute with regard to the valuation of the goods. The proceedings started were dropped by the Commissioner (Appeals) but the Department issued 21 show cause notices for the period from December 1989 to January 1984 seeking to adopt the depot selling price and allow deduction towards freight of 1.41% alone and demand differential duty. The appellants actually claimed deduction towards the following elements. (i) Equalised freight (ii) Trade discount (iii) Interest on deferred payment 3. Further the appellants contented that a di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er has not been challenged, it becomes final. (ii) The demand for the period in question cannot be confirmed without challenging the approvals of pricelists. The following case laws were relied on : (a) Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilisers v. CCE reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 362. (b) Forbes Gokak Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2005 (182) E.L.T. 219. It was further submitted that the revalidation act of 2000 amending Section 11A has only enabled the department to issue a show cause notice for the past period also. The revalidation act does not state that the notice issued under Section 11A would be valid not withstanding the fact that the approval granted has to been appealed by the department. Therefore, the show cause no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Tyres International Ltd. - 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.) and MRF (supra) cases. 7. The learned SDR reiterated the order-in-Original. 8. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. According to the learned Advocate, the same issue was the subject matter of adjudicating proceedings for an earlier period. The proceedings were decided in favour of the appellant. Since these proceedings have not been appealed against, the learned advocate contended that subsequently, the department cannot take a different stand especially in view of the approval of the pricelists by the department. He has also emphasised the point that the approval of the pricelists have not been reviewed at all. On going throu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
