1986 (6) TMI 211 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Revision petition filed before the Central Government transferred to the Tribunal as an appeal.
- Appeal against the order of the Appellate Collector regarding determination of assessable value.
- Dispute over the assessable value of U.F. resin manufactured and consumed by the appellants.
- Contention over profit margin, exclusion of certain items from assessable value, and validity of demand raised.

Analysis:
The case involves a revision petition transferred to the Tribunal as an appeal, challenging the order of the Appellate Collector regarding the determination of the assessable value of U.F. resin manufactured and consumed by the appellants. The appellants had filed a price list based on 1973 costing data, which was approved by the Jurisdictional Superintendent. However, a show cause notice was issued later, questioning the assessable value for the years 1974 and 1975, leading to a dispute over the profit margin and the inclusion/exclusion of certain items in the assessable value calculation.

The appellants argued that the assessable value should be based on 1973 costing data and contested the addition of a higher profit margin than the 10% they were using. They also disputed the inclusion of certain items in the assessable value calculation. The Assistant Collector approved a higher assessable value, which was upheld by the Appellate Collector, albeit limiting the demand to one year from the date of the show cause notice.

The Tribunal analyzed the case in light of the time limits prescribed under the Central Excise Act and Rules. It noted that the demand raised by the Assistant Collector was hit by a time-limit issue, as it was not raised within the extended period. The Tribunal emphasized that the Department had not followed the proper procedure for raising the demand within the applicable time frame, leading to the demand being barred by limitation.

Additionally, a judgment from a different case was referenced to highlight the distinction between provisional and final assessments, emphasizing that in the present case, there was no evidence to suggest that the price approved was provisional. The Tribunal concluded that it had to adhere to the time limits prescribed by law and allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Appellate Collector.

In summary, the judgment addressed the issues of assessable value determination, profit margin calculation, and the validity of the demand raised, highlighting the importance of following procedural requirements and time limits in such matters under the Central Excise Act and Rules.