9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e chargeable to excise duty at 20% with effect from 1-3-1994. They had filed price list for 1993-94 and price annexure for 1994-95 for the goods captively consumed, under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975, declaring that there were no comparable goods available. The respondents, while filing the Price List/Annexure, stated that they would be paying duty on the goods consumed within the factory, on the basis of value tentatively computed. Departmental enquiries into the valuation of the goods revealed that the respondents had also cleared PTFE tubes outside the factory for home consumption and it occurred to the Department that the price adopted for such clearance could be the basis for determining the value of simi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this appeal of the Revenue. 2. In this appeal, it is admitted that there was no evidence of misdeclaration or misstatement to invoke the extended period of limitation against the assessee. The Revenue has, however, challenged the Commissioner's finding that the assessments for the period of dispute were not provisional. According to the appellant, the adjudicating authority should have held that the assessments during the period of dispute were provisional (notwithstanding the fact that there was neither any formal order of assessment nor any bond under Rule 9B) by following the Supreme Court's decision in Samrat International (P) Ltd. v Collector of Central Excise [1992 (58) E.L.T. 561 (S.C.)] and the Tribunal's Larger Bench decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fact that there was neither any formal order of assessment nor any bond. The appellant has claimed support to this contention from the Apex Court's judgment in Samrat International case and the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in Rajeev Mardia case. We are at a loss to understand as to how these decisions are applicable to the facts of this case. On the other hand, we find that the Apex Court's judgment in Hindustan National Glass and Industries (supra) is squarely against the Revenue. It has been held by their Lordships that passing of an order under Rule 9B and payment of duty on provisional basis are essential to establish that the clearances of goods were provisionally assessed. On this test laid down by the Apex Court, the plea of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
