9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove processing is carried out on their own, on grey fabrics belonging to them, and the remaining processing is undertaken on job work basis on grey fabrics supplied to them by others. The dispute involved in the impugned order, which covers the period of 1-9-1985 to 30-9-1989, is the valuation of the processed fabrics for the purpose of payment of Central Excise duty. 2. The impugned order has demanded a differential duty of over Rs. 3.8 crores as against the amount of Rs. 4.8 crores demanded in the show cause notice. In addition, the impugned order also has demanded interest on the duty demanded. In respect of the liability to penalty the impugned order states that this position would be taken up separately, if need be, at the appro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w cause notice itself did not contain any detailed computation of the duty demand. During the course of adjudication proceedings, they were supplied calculation sheets running into more than 30,000 entries on 1165 pages. Verification of these calculation sheets revealed errors in around 10,000 cases. Only part of the errors were cross-checked with supporting documents between the Central Excise officers and the appellants' staff. The appellant had submitted detailed calculation sheets on 3rd June, 1998. However, as the adjudication order was issued on 16-6-1998 itself, all the errors were not taken up for correction. (The Commissioner was transferred in the middle of the proceedings and he was in a hurry to complete the adjudication). In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spective of what is the price taken as the basis for valuation, the same should be treated as cum-duty realisation and duty amount should be deducted from the gross price realised for the purpose of arriving at the assessable value. It has been submitted that this position remains settled by the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Srichakra Tyres Ltd. & Ors. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras [1999 (108) E.L.T. 361 (Tribunal) = 1999 (32) RLT 1-CEGAT (Larger Bench)]. 8. We have heard the ld. SDR on behalf of the Revenue. He submitted that the Commissioner has correctly held that valuation of goods manufactured on job work basis cannot be done based on the Ujagar Prints judgment (supra) as the parties involved in the instant ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -made fabric to the processor for processing on job work basis would give a declaration to the processor as to what would be the price at which he would be selling the processed goods in the market, that would be taken by the Excise authorities as the assessable value of the processed fabric and excise duty would be charged to the processor on that basis provided that the declaration as to the price at which he would be selling the processed goods in the market would include only the price or deemed price at which the processed fabric would leave the processor's factory plus his profit. Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 enjoins that when goods owned by one person are manufactured by another the information is required relating to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is ground is required to be set aside and the valuation of fabrics processed on job work basis should be carried out on the basis of cost of production as laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ujagar Print's case. 11. Reference in particular has been made on behalf of the Revenue to the finding in para 13(ii) of the Commissioner's order. Para 13(ii) mentions that notices No. 22-34 are "intermediary/dummy concerns". This observation's basis and validity under Central Excise law is not clear. Central Excise valuation law makes no separate provision in respect of "intermediaries". Therefore, the findings based on this observation have no legal support. 12. The appellants' complaint that there are a large number of error ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, SKL had approached the Hon. High Court of Delhi by way of a Writ Petition. The Hon'ble High Court in turn quashed the SCN relating to penal action proposed. Therefore, the notices have contended that they are not required to make any submission in this regard. 62. However, the Union of India, has filed a SLP in the Supreme Court against this judgment. Though this Apex Court has admitted the said SLP but refused to grant a stay against this order. Hence, it becomes a binding upon the undersigned. Moreover, the Union of India has, in the meantime, already amended suitably the provisions of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 to overc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
