TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Clarifies Excise Notification Interpretation, Assessable Value, Show Cause Notice, and Refund Claims</h1> The Tribunal resolved multiple issues concerning the interpretation of Notification No. 198/76-C.E., recalculation of assessable value and excess ... Valuation - Excess Production Rebate Issues:1. Interpretation of Notification No. 198/76-C.E.2. Recalculation of assessable value and excess production.3. Validity of show cause notice under Section 35A(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.4. Base clearance determination and value calculation.5. Limitation period for refund claims.6. Survival of the show cause notice issued by the Collector.Issue 1: Interpretation of Notification No. 198/76-C.E.:The dispute revolved around two main questions:(i) Whether the assessable value can be recalculated considering the part of the concessional duty not passed on to customers.(ii) Whether the adjusted value or actual value of base clearance should be used for calculating excess production under the notification. The Tribunal considered various judgments and arguments from both sides, including the impact of retrospective amendments and the relevance of previous court decisions.Issue 2: Recalculation of assessable value and excess production:The Tribunal analyzed arguments on whether the assessable value should be recalculated based on concessional duty and the method for determining excess production. The discussion included the impact of amendments, court judgments, and the implications of the Finance Act 2 of 1980 on the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in revising refunds.Issue 3: Validity of show cause notice under Section 35A(2):The case involved a review show cause notice issued by the Collector under Section 35A(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal examined the grounds for the notice, including the refund claim, deliberate duty payment, and the Collector's authority to review the Assistant Collector's order.Issue 4: Base clearance determination and value calculation:The parties disputed whether the base clearance value should be the adjusted or actual value. Arguments were presented citing court judgments, including the relevance of the Delhi High Court's decision in Modi Rubber Ltd. The Tribunal analyzed the legal interpretations and implications for determining the base clearance value.Issue 5: Limitation period for refund claims:The Tribunal considered the limitation period for refund claims, focusing on the date of determination and approval of the base period and base clearance. Various court judgments, including those from the Madras High Court and Tribunal decisions, were referenced to determine the correct starting point for calculating the limitation period.Issue 6: Survival of the show cause notice issued by the Collector:The Tribunal deliberated on whether the show cause notice issued by the Collector could be sustained after the appellate order. The doctrine of merger was discussed, and the Tribunal concluded that the review show cause notice dated 7-6-1980 did not survive after the appellate order on 6-9-1984. The decision was based on the legal principles governing the review process in the context of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.This comprehensive analysis of the legal judgment highlights the intricate legal issues, interpretations of notifications, jurisdictional considerations, and the application of relevant court precedents in resolving the disputes presented before the Tribunal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
