9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en by the Appellate Tribunal in the case of M/s. IDPL v. C.C.E. [1987 (27) E.L.T. 356 (T)] wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal has held that the PL/CL is effective from the date of filing and not from the date the approval is accorded." Revenue being aggrieved by this order has filed the present Appeal. 2. The facts of the case are that the Appellants submitted revised Price list on 2-3-1992 on account of budgetary changes. In this Price list, the prices at which the woods were ordinarily sold in the course of the wholesale trade were not revised and remained the same as shown in the previously approved price list. But due to increase in the rate of Special Excise Duty, value as claimed for approval by the assessee as shown in Col. 11 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry. The ld. SDR submitted that in the case before him, the existing value of the goods with the reduction in assessable value will be effective only from the date of approval of the price list and not from the date of its filing. He submits that since the Assistant Collector had approved the price list only on 30-3-1992, therefore, that is the date from which reduction in prices shall be effective. He submits that the action of the Assistant Collector in giving effect to the price list from 30-3-1992 was legal and warranted and the decision of the Collector (Appeals) was wrong. He submitted that in this view of the matter, the Appeal may be allowed. 4. Shri G. Shivdas, the ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondents, submits that the Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited and relied upon the decision of this Tribunal contained in its Final Order No. 874/98-A, dated 28-6-1998 in the case of M/s. Union Carbide India Ltd. v. C.C.E., Chandigarh. This Tribunal in para held : "There is also no dispute that final approval order will relate back to the dates on which the respective price lists were filed and, therefore, for the clearances during the aforesaid period also whatever price is finally approved by the proper officer would be applicable." The facts in that case were that during the short period from the date of filing of each of the price lists and the corresponding date of approval, appellant had cleared some goods on payment of duty on the lower value declared in these price lists. The ld. Counsel s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ph 6 of the order. The Bench then referred to the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Samrat International Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E. [1992 (58) E.L.T. 561 (S.C.)] in paragraph 7 of the order. In the present case, instead of availing the procedure under Rule 9B, paying duty on the lower price, appellant chose to pay duty on the higher price under protest. We do not think the situation is required to be treated differently. When ultimately the revised price list is approved as claimed, the assessee will not be required to pay the differential duty in respect of clearances during the period from the date of filing the price list and the date of approval. In a case where instead of availing the procedure of Rule 9(b), the manufacturer pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
