2002 (12) TMI 141

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onsumer packs and are cleared. Central Excise duty is attracted both when goods are cleared in bulk packs from the Nabha factory as well as when they are cleared after re-packing from the packing stations. The duty paid at the Nabha factory for the bulk clearances is availed as Modvat/Cenvat credit for payment of duty on the re-packed goods at the packing stations. 2. All the present appeals relate to differential duty demands in respect of goods cleared in bulk from the Nabha factory during the years 1994 to 2000. The facts of the case are that since the clearance from Nabha were to self for captive consumption, the assessable values of the goods were required to be determined based on their cost of production from time to time. During ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s a pre-condition for the consideration of the appeals on merits. The appellants did not make the pre-deposits. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed for default. The present appeals are directed against that order of dismissal of appeals. 3. These appeals also include a duty demand of Rs. 23.56 lakhs in respect of Boost intermediates sold to Jagajit Industries. This demand is not contested by the appellants. 4. The contention of the appellants is that revision of the original assessments and payment of the differential duty demands (on account of the finalisation of the provisional assessments) is entirely unnecessary in the facts of the present case. They have pointed out that the entire duty paid on the bulk goods at Nabha was avai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f provisional assessments are required to be quashed. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellants have pointed out that in similar cases this Tribunal quashed duty demands and allowed Appeals of assessees in M/s. Gopal Zarda Udyog v. CCE - 2001 (128) E.L.T. 409 (T) and CCE v. Cloride Industries Ltd. - 1997 (22) RLT 586 (T). The learned Counsel also pointed out that it is settled law that a Tribunal is competent to take into account subsequent developments and mould relief in the light of those facts. [Commissioner of Agricultural Income-Tax v. Amalgamated Tea Estates Co. Ltd. [1970 Income Tax Reporters (Vol. 77) 455 and P. Venkateswarlu v. The Motor & General Traders [AIR 1975 S.C. 1409]. 6. The Revenue have contended that the present d....