TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 570X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount and also on conversion basis out of raw material supplied by the principal manufacturer namely Mukand Ltd. and M/s. Kalyani Steels Ltd.; that the South Regional Bench at Bangalore of Appellate Tribunal, vide Final Order No. 390-94/2002, dated 15-3-2002 [2002 (148) E.L.T. 341 (T)] ordered issued that the valuation is required to be determined on the basis of costing data as per the Ujagar Prints 1989 (39) E.L.T. 493 (S.C.) and not as per the sale price of goods sold on account of M/s. Kalyani Steel Ltd. by the Appellants to other independent buyers, since such prices would include the element of traders profit which can not be included in the assessable value to be determined on job work, goods as per clarificatory orders of the Supre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15-3-1999; that in fact the Range Superintendent under letter dated 17-2-1999 had called upon the Appellants to furnish the details such as receipt of raw materials for conversion, agreement between the Appellants and the principal manufacturers and basis for fixing the assessable value of Rs. 5,700 by 26-2-1999 positively as a detailed report is to be submitted to the Divisional office; that details were submitted by them under their letter dated 11-3-1999 in which they also informed the basis for arriving at the assessable value of Rs. 5,700/-; that in view of these letters, extended period of limitation can not be invoked. 4. Learned Chartered Accountant submitted that on the basis of assessable value as determined by the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocable. Learned Departmental Representative further, submitted that the duty paid in excess has to be claimed as refund by them from the Department wherein they have to prove that incidence of excess duty paid has not been passed on to their customers; that if the adjustment of duty paid in excess is made at this stage, it will enrich the Appellants unjustly. 6. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The submissions of the learned Advocate regarding non-invocation of extended period of limitation are well founded. In their declaration dated 31-8-1998 it is clearly mentioned by them that they are converting the inputs supplied by Kalyani Steels Ltd. and Mukand Ltd. into pig iron in both liquid and sold forms. It is further m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s would not have arisen. Accordingly, we hold that the extended period of limitation under Proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act is not invocable. The demand of Central Excise duty within normal period of limitation is payable by the Appellants. 7. We do not find any merit in the submissions of the learned Chartered Accountant that the duty paid in excess should have been adjusted against the duty paid in short. As rightly contended by the learned Departmental Representative, the adjustment of excess duty amount to refund of the same. Before any duty can be refunded, the claimant has to prove that the incidence of such duty has not been passed on to any other person. Accordingly, we uphold the duty of excise which is within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
