9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uipment which was to be manufactured by the Trichy unit of BHEL was partially sub-contracted to the Ranipet Unit of BHEL and such practice was normally followed for most of the contracts executed by BHEL, Trichy. The assessment of goods cleared for such projects were done on provisional basis due to various reasons and the assessments were finalized after completion of the project. At the time of clearance, the value was determined on the basis of average price per kilogram arrived on the basis of theoretical calculation and multiplying it by actual weight of goods cleared in each consignment. On finalization the actual value of the total goods supplied and actual weight of the goods supplied are considered and excise duty payable determine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal assessments in respect of the boilers and other equipments (including ESP) supplied to M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. by the appellant's Trichy and Ranipet Units, it was not open to the assessing authority to keep out any part of the goods which were subjected to provisional assessment. The mere fact that the buyer of ESP obtained refund of a part of the duty paid by them on the goods would not constitute valid reason to exclude such goods from the finalization of the provisional assessments. No valid claim for refund of duty can arise from a provisional assessment and, further, any refund of duty is irrelevant to finalisation of the provisional assessments in question. To put it in a different way, we may say that, though the claim fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner and there is no room for dispute on such aspects." The Original Authority following the remand direction finalized the assessment by including the value of ESP. Against this, the department filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeal), contending that while quantifying differential duty, the refund granted to M/s.Grasim should be deducted. Vide order impugned herein, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the department, thus holding that cost of ESP is not to be included in the assessable value. Hence this appeal. 4. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellant, Ld. Advocate Shri M. Karthikeyan submitted that the said order passed by Tribunal granting refund to M/s.Grasim Industries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
