9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (8) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cassette Recorders and therefore the Respondents would not be entitled to claim refund of excise duty paid by another company viz. M/s. DIGICO India Ltd. and the Respondents would be liable to pay appropriate duty on 1592 Nos. of Radio Cassette Recorders manufactured by M/s. DIGICO on their behalf. The learned SDR, therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 3. Shri Sampath, the learned counsel for the Respondents, submitted that it is not disputed that the Respondents have been held to be the manufacturer and apart from settling this question by order dated 7-9-1987, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, in Order-in-Appeal No. 244/87(C) clearly held and found, that the Department would be entitled only to collect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e upheld. 4. We have considered the submissions made before us. The Respondents admittedly have been held the manufacturer and admittedly the Collector (Appeals) by order dated 7-9-1987 has directed the Respondents to pay the differential duty on the goods in question on the value of Rs. 660 per set and after adjusting the duty in terms of the said order the Respondents would become entitled to claim refund in respect of the excess amount admittedly appropriated by the Assistant Collector. This order of the Collector (Appeals) dated 7-9-1987 having been allowed to become final by the Department, the Department cannot reagitate or relitigate the issue and such an exercise would be an exercise in futility besides being barred by the principl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts as manufacturers by using DIGICO's hired labour and demanded duty in respect of all the clearances of Radio Cassette Recorders made by M/s. DIGICO on the total assessable value of Rs. 2,060 per set i.e. including the value of Rs. 1,400 in respect of which the duty had already been discharged by M/s. DIGICO. This is a peculiar case where the goods had already been cleared and assessed at the hands of M/s. DIGICO and, however, later the Respondents have been held to be manufacturers and duty had been demanded on the goods once over at the enhanced value. The Respondents, we find, have not challenged the legality of this demand and they joined the proceedings disputing the quantum of the demand made against them. On appeal against tins orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , to that extent modification of the demanded amount is essential and the same should be carried out by the Assistant Collector and the resultant amount based on the addition of value of Rs. 660/- is only demandable from the appellants." It is seen by this order the learned Collector (Appeals) has taken conscious decision that the Respondents could not be called upon to pay the duty twice over in respect of that portion of the value on which the duty had already been discharged. The Departmental authorities did not take up this finding of the learned Collector (Appeals) in appeal and it can be taken that the Department had accepted this finding and the matter as to the extent of demand that could be raised against the Respondents has thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
