AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (9) TMI 332
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-CE dated 28-2-2006 in the case of M/s. Mukund Ltd. is reproduced herein below. "I have gone through the record of this case and carefully considered submissions made the appellants as well as the department. The appellants have disputed the impugned order confirming differential duty and interest liabilities while finalizing provisional assessment for the period 1-7-2000 to 31-3-2004. Dispute is primarily regarding the validity for finalization order itself and secondarily relating to infirmities and inaccuracies of costing adopted by the department for finalizing assessable value. The fact is not disputed that the appellants paid duty in terms of Valuation Rule 8 on the basis of previous years cost report and also differential duty as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment order, to pass, an order finalizing assessment and demanding differential duty and interest. I am of the view that no such jurisdiction exists. Once the appellants discharged different duty liability and no notice demand for alleged short payment of duty/interest on delayed payment is made within normal period or by invoking extended period, the duty payment becomes final and in absence of provisional assessment order, jurisdiction under Rule 9B/Rule 7 cannot be invoked. The order is liable to be set aside on this count alone. The fact that the appellant paid duty provisionally does not confer such jurisdiction as no order was passed for ordering the same. The only alternative for recovering short payment or interest is issuance of a d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a was available. The very purpose of finalization is defeated if costs are still to be calculated by averaging when its item wise calculation is feasible. The adjudicating authority has also added return on investment to cost of production whereas the same was not required to be added as per accounting norms CAS-4 accepted and circulated by CBEC vide C.No. 892/89/2003 CX dated 13-2-2003. They have also objected to cost adopted for oxygen used, consolidated calculation for years 1-7-2000 to 31-3-2004 instead of doing it year wise and costing of input material of M/s. Kalyani Steels under Valuation Rule 8 instead of applying the value formula as per Ujagar Prints case. I find that apart from the fact that the finalization order is without ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....000 issued by the assessee intimating the department that due to introduction of transaction value they had adopted the cost of production figures of 1999-2000, as cost of production for the year 2000-2001 was not yet ascertained and they would be able to arrive at the cost of production for the current year (2000-2001) only after closing the books of accounts half yearly that is on 30th September 2000. They had also indicated that calculation of price based on cost of production was made once in six months only and that they could not arrive at the actual cost of production of finished goods at the time of production/clearance which could only be ascertained once in six months. Therefore, they requested the department that the determinatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Glass & Industries Ltd. - 2005 (182) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.) wherein also it has been held that the procedure under Rule 9B is required to be followed. Further reference is made to J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. v. CCE - 1998 (99) E.L.T. 8 (S.C.) wherein it has been held that assessments are not to be treated as provisional solely on the premise that the matter was sub-judice in the absence of an expressing order of provisional assessment as required under Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 3.1 The learned counsel submitted that after finalizing the accounts they had paid the differential duty and the revenue had not initiated any proceedings for invoking larger period by issue of show cause notice. Therefore, the learned counsel....