TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (3) TMI 199
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anised M.S. Pipes; that in the price list filed by them, they had claimed deductions on account of post removal expenses (PRE in short) and sought permission for provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules; that a show cause notice, dated 24-12-1997 was issued to them for denying the permission for provisional assessment and for recovering the duty on account of PRE for the month of November, 1997; that subsequently five more show cause notices were issued for demanding duty on account of PRE for the period from December, 1997 to 14-3-1999; that the Assistant Commissioner adjudicated three show cause notices under a common Order-in-Original Nos. 7-9/99/1A/AC, dated 29-1-1999 rejecting the request for provisional assessm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the expenses incurred by the Respondents after removal of the goods from the factory; that statements of their customers were also recorded which revealed that they had purchased finished goods from the Respondents as per the negotiated rates and all the expenses beginning from unloading charges at their godown up to final sale were borne by them (customer); that, therefore, a show cause notice, dated 26-5-2000 was issued to the Respondent for demanding duty amounting to Rs. 2,56,00,182/- short-paid during the period from 8th November, 1997 to 14-3-1999 besides imposing penalty and interest; that the Commissioner, Central Excise under the Order-in-Original, dated 30-1-2001 confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty holding that they....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... account of PRE which were disallowed as they were unable to substantiate the nature of those charges; that in the impugned proceedings the case has been booked by the Preventive as they unearthed that the Respondents were receiving extra considerations from their buyers which was being disguised as PRE; that the scope of the enquiry has widened as new facts have come to light; that the subsequent facts definitely warrants that the Commissioner should give his findings on these facts and adjudicate the demands which are still pending with the lower adjudicating authority, impose penalty and demand interest for the entire amount. She relied upon the decision in the case of Peico Electronics and Electricals Ltd. v. C.C.E., Pune, 1994 (71) E.L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h if Revenue unearths some more material after their search and scrutiny on 4-12-1998 (say in the year 2000) which provides different ground, a third show cause notice can also be issued. Secondly, it is a fact that the Respondents claimed deductions on account of post removal expenses in their price list and also requested for provisional assessment. The Department issued show cause notice for denying both the requests - Provisional Assessment and deductions on account of PRE. It is presumed that Department must have issued the show cause notice only after conducting some enquiry/investigation. The matter does not end here. The department goes on issuing five more show cause notices covering a period of more than 16 months to the Responden....