TMI Blog1999 (1) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Excise Duty. 3. Heard Shri Rajesh Chandra Kumar, learned Advocate for appellants who submitted that this valuation for captive consumption is to be done in terms of Rule 6(b) of the Valuation Rules under Central Excise. For this purpose, the appellants had filed declarations disclosing the cost of production plus notional profit of @ 10% to arrive at the assessable value. Vide show cause notice dated 30-12-94 for the period 1-6-94 to 31-10-94, the Department proposed rejection of this. 10% notional margin of profit and proposed re-computation on the basis of actual sales of the end product. However, before the matter could be adjudicated, a corrigendum to the show cause notice was issued on 18-1-96 where the period covered was extend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fallacies :- (i) The job work value of 1992 is not relevant as it was the job work done by different agency. (ii) The job work value of 1992 was with respect to an input which was different from one of the inputs which have since been substituted by them when they manufactured the goods themselves. (iii) Further, the landed cost of these inputs to the appellants is drastically changed how in view of gradual lowering of the customs import duties; some of these inputs had been admittedly imported goods. The international price of these inputs had also come down since 1992. 5. Learned Advocate submits that all these submissions were made before the original authority at the time of the personal hearing. However, learned Assistant Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order-in-appeal impugned that the question of time bar has not at all been considered in any details. We find that when a corrigendum was issued on 18-1-96 changing the very basis of the duty demanded, the learned appellate authority was required to consider whether this amounted to a fresh show cause notice and therefore whether limitation was involved or not. We also find that the written submissions submitted by the appellants before the first appellate authority do not find any mention of the analysis of the main ground and on this issue we find that the order impugned is a non-speaking and needs to be set aside. 9. Since the matter lies on a short compass, we also grant waiver and stay of the amounts to be deposited and proceed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
