TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (3) TMI 8
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion the Commissioner (A) had concluded vide order dated 22-3-2000 that the bought out items were dutiable and which order had become final. 2.The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of plant and equipments for soaps, detergents and allied industries falling under Chapter sub-heading 8479.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The manufactured equipments were cleared by the appellants on payment of duty. The dispute relates to dutiability of certain bought out items like motor-pumps, heat exchangers etc. The appellants had entered into a composite contract with M/s. Godrej Soaps Ltd. and M/s. Galaxy Surfactants Ltd. for the supply of various items which formed part of the fatty acid plant. Under the contract, in addition to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00 the Commissioner (A) held that the value of the bought out items was includible in the assessable value of the equipments manufactured. However, the Commissioner (A) remanded the matter for quantification of the duty liability on the ground that the demand stood restricted for 6 months. In the quantum dispute the adjudicating authority confirmed once again the duty demand amounting to Rs. 94,03,500 although the period stood reduced to 6 months. Aggrieved by the said order of the adjudicating authority the appellants once again moved the Commissioner (A). Vide order dated 9-4-2003 the Commissioner (A) confirmed the duty demanded on the ground that the appellant had failed to produce evidence to disprove the quantification made by the depa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estion to be decided was regarding the quantum of duty liability. In the circumstances the High Court held that the Tribunal was not competent to entertain the appeal preferred by the assessee against the later order of the Commissioner (A) dated 9-4-2003 in the second round of litigation on the question as to whether the bought out items were dutiable. By the impugned judgment the High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal. 3.Hence this appeal by the assessee. 4.In our view the High Court had erred in holding that the Tribunal could not have examined the question of dutiability, once on merits, the order of the Commissioner (A) dated 22-3-2000 became final. Firstly, one must understand that excisability is a matter of principle. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... can also refer the matter to an expert. The Act also makes provision for special audit. However, when the principle of law is evolved an appeal lies to the appellate Tribunal under the said Act. In fact, the power of remand by the Commissioner (A) has been taken away by amending Section 35A with effect from 11-5-2001 under the Finance Bill, 2001. Under the Notes to clause 122 of the said Bill it is stated that clause 122 seeks to amend Section 35A so as to withdraw the powers of the Commissioner (A) to remand matters back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. Therefore, the Commissioner (A) continues to exercise the powers of the adjudicating authority in the matters of assessment. Under Section 35B any person aggrieved by....