TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (1) TMI 322
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order dated 23-4-98/25-6-98 was passed for appropriation of the refund amount of Rs. 11,74,686/- towards the demand of Rs. 14,34,437 which was raised on the RT 12 returns for the period 12/93 to 1/93 as per OIO No. 2/95, dated 6-2-95. The appellants challenge the appropriation order, which has been upheld in the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 230/2002-C.E., dated 10-4-2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore. 2. Shri S. Raghu, learned Advocate appeared for the appellants and Shri K.S. Reddy, learned JDR appeared for the Revenue. 3. The learned advocate urged that the appropriation order is bad in law, as no show cause notice was issued before appropriation. No finding has been given with regard to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....E.L.T. A 229. (iii) Cinelamp - 2003 (157) E.L.T. 557. The refund amount has been appropriated after a lapse of 2½ years from the date of sanction. 4. The learned SDR said that the appellants filed a pricelist indicating the value of the goods for assessment purposes. The pricelist which was filed was not accepted, as certain elements of cost were not included. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants for finalizing the pricelist in accordance with law. The Order No. 2/95 is in fact an order for finalization of the pricelist. Consequent to Order No. 2/95, assessments were done in RT 12 and it was found that the appellants were liable to pay Rs. 14,34,437/-. Therefore, it is not correct to s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut issue of show cause notice and providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee. In this connection, the observations of the Tribunal in Para 4 are significant. They are reproduced below : 4. We find that the Superintendent had calculated the duty liability at the rate of 20 per cent after taking the assessable value of the bus without allowing deduction of value of chassis. We further find that Assistant Collector had allowed the appellant to provisionally clear the goods by paying Rs. 15,000/- per vehicle. As the Assistant Collector had provisionally allowed the clearances at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per vehicle, if the appellants were asked to pay the duty at the higher rate, then it was necessary that they were issued ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved classification list and demand on RT 12 was issued without issue of a show cause notice. Thus, the above case is also distinguishable from the present one. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Serai Kella Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that no show cause notice need be issued under Section 11A of the C.E. when the demand arises as a consequence of finalisation of the assessment. If any short levy is detected after final assessment only then proceedings under Section 11A can be taken after issuing a show cause notice. The ratio of the above decision is squarely applicable to the present case. The pricelist filed by the appellant was finalized in terms of Order No. 2/95 and the demand in the RT 12 returns has been raised only ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessment memorandum on the return. A copy of the return so completed shall be sent to the assessee. (2) The duty determined and paid by the assessee under rule 173F shall be adjusted against the duty assessed by the proper officer under sub-rule (1) and where the duty so assessed is more than the duty determined and paid by the assessee, the assessee shall pay the deficiency by making a debit in the account-current within ten days of receipt of copy of the return from the proper officer and where such duty is less, the assessee shall take credit in the account-current for the excess on receipt of the assessment order in the copy of the return duly countersigned by a Superintendent of Central Excise. From....