TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (5) TMI 101
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tariff Item 14I(3)(iii). Another product "Universal Stainers" which was normally packed and cleared in 20 ltrs. packing from the factory was declared as falling under Tariff Item No. 141(5). The classification lists filed by the appellants were approved by the Assistant Collector. After clearance from the factory in 20 ltrs. packing, the said products were removed to the premises of M/s. Anusuya and Atul Painters and Colour Art and brought back there from after re-packing into smaller packing of 1 liter, 500 ml., 200 ml., 100 ml. and 50 ml. to their own depot for sale. On the grounds that duty was leviable on the price of the smaller packings the appellants were asked to show cause as to why the short levy amounting to Rs. 4,24,551.49 durin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n, of assessing the goods on the price of the smaller packings into which the goods were re-packed after clearance did not arise. In support of his contention that duty of excise has to be levied on the goods in the form in which they exist at the time of clearance and not in the condition in which they may be at any future date after clearance from the factory, he placed reliance on the decision of the Government of India in the case of I.O.C. Ltd. reported in 1982 (10) E.L.T. 744. Shri Divekar also contended that the demand issued under Rule 10(1) after 6 months from the date of the assessment of the relevant RT 12 return was barred by limitation since it did not allege any mis-statement or suppression of facts. He, therefore, contended t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of payment of duty could be confirmed when in the Show Cause Notice issued under Rule 10(1) there was no allegation of suppression or mis-statement of facts. 4. In regard to the first point, we find that in the case of I.O.C. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Calcutta-11, reported in 1987 (27) E.L.T. 482, the Tribunal has held that the mineral turpentine oil removed in bulk on payment of duty from the appellants refinery to their filling depot for packing into containers was not chargeable to duty at the higher price relating to packed goods since in terms of Section 4 the goods have to be valued and assessed to duty at the time and place of removal and the filling or packing activity on duty paid goods after clearance fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al from Haldia Refinery and Mourigram warehouse, in bulk condition and not in packed condition. Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Act is, therefore, inapplicable to them. 9. It is not possible to think of any other basis at which, the stock transfer quantity should be assessed at Haldia Refinery and Mourigram warehouse. Indeed, at the time of bulk removal from these places, it would be impossible to know as to how much of the quantity would eventually be sold to D.G.S. & D. in appellants' containers. 10. Since the law requires the bulk removals, whether for sale or for stock transfer, ex-Haldia Refinery and ex-Mourigram warehouse, to be valued and assessed to duty at the bulk sale price which was ascertainable and the appellants did declare such ....