9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (6) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y them. They filed a price list in respect of metal containers for the period from 1-1-76 to 31st December, 1976 with the Asstt. Collector. Along with the said price list they also filed a certificate by their Chartered Accountant certifying the cost of manufacture of the metal containers for the relevant period, which included the element of profit and the manufacturing cost. The Assessable value of the metal container accordingly worked out at Rs. 51.41 per 100 containers. The Asstt. Collector determined the assessable value at Rs. 53.58 for 100 containers by an endorsement on the price list. On appeal the Collector, remanded the matter to the Asstt. Collector for denovo consideration on the ground that the order of the Asstt. Collector i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Valuation Rules of 1975 against which the present appeal is filed. 4. The appellants raised the following contentions :- (i) The review show cause notice is barred by limitation. (ii) The order of the Asstt. Collector dated 18th December, 1979 was passed in pursuance of the order of remand by the Collector to determine the assessable value on the basis of cost under Rule 6b(ii). Therefore, the review show cause notice should be confined only with regard to the inclusion of the element of interest on prorata profit in the cost of manufacture of the metal container as per the certificate of Chartered Accountant. The basis for review is restricted to the records of the case and no power is conferred upon the authority ei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, even if the appellant have not supplied the information relating to the price at which they purchased from the said company it does not amount to suppression of material as the said information is not relevant. 5. Shri Asthana, learned SDR appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that there is a patent, illegality in the proceedings before the Asstt. Collector who has not applied his mind as to the applicability of the relevant rule i.e. Rule 6(b)(i). Therefore, the review show cause notice should be read along with the addendum. An addendum is a part of the show cause notice, therefore, the question of limitation for the addendum does not arise. Since there is a defect in the proceedings before the Asstt. Collector s actio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice dated 24th July, 1980 is within the period of limitation has relied upon Section 35A(4) which reads as follows : No proceedings shall be commenced under this section in respect of any decision or order [whether such decision or order has been passed before or after the commencement of the Customs, Central Excises and Salt and Central Boards of Revenue (Amendment) Act, 1978] after the expiration of a period of one year from the date of such decision or order. In other words according to him the proceedings sought to be revised relate to approval of price lists and neither relate to short levy, nor non-levy therefore, the period for revising the order is one year. 8. We agree with the view expressed by the Collector. Admittedly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be added. According to the same dictionary the meaning of supplementary is any addition by which defects are made good. 11. In other words, the defect if any in the original show cause notice can be made good by means of an addendum and in our view a defect should be related to the material already on record. If there is a omission the Commission can be supplied by adding the material, in this case which should relate to the determination of assessable value under Rule 6(b)(ii). But the ground proposed in the addendum is not a defect, but a new ground namely under Rule 6(b)(i) on the basis of which the assessable value is sought to be determined. In our view no new case can be made out by means of an addendum. If we examine it from anothe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it should not extend to make out new case in the revisional proceedings. 14. The order in Reckitt Colman of India Ltd. v. CCE - 1985 (22) E.L.T. 216, relied upon by Shri Asthana is distinguished on fact. The Collector on perusal of record found that the Asstt. Collector s order had been passed without benefit of the test report of the Chemical Examiner. The samples are collected and sent for chemical analysis. The Asstt. Collector without awaiting for the result of the report of the chemical examiner passed the impugned order in that case. Therefore, there is justification for the Collector to revise the proceedings. Whereas in the present case the Central Excise authorities were proposing to make out a new case in the addendum which th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
