2005 (1) TMI 190

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ral Excise) directed them under letter dated 2-4-2001 to make payment of duty taking the assessable value @ 115% of production cost of processed fabrics in terms of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000; that as the duty was payable on the assessable value determined in terms of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Ujagar Prints, 1989 (39) E.L.T. 493 (S.C.), they requested for provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944/Rule 7(1) of the Central Excise (No. 2). Rules, 2001; that the differential duty was also paid by them to the Department; that, finally, the Board clarified vide Circular No. 619/10/2002-C.X., dated 19-2-2002 and Circular No. 643/34/2002-C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... while finalising the provisional assessment. 3. The learned Advocate submitted that the Assistant Commissioner had finalised the provisional assessment vide Order dated 31-12-2002 in which the deemed credit, wrongly availed of by them, was determined to Rs. 5,67,308/-; that once the Order, finalising the assessment has been issued by the Assistant Commissioner, he has become functus officio and cannot issue a corrigendum increasing the amount of deemed Modvat credit payable by them; that it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Patna v. I.T.C., 1994 (71) E.L.T. 324 (S.C.) that after finalisation of assessment, the assessee cannot be saddled with additional demand without issuing the show cause notice and affording perso....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....also reveals that only the figures have been changed which appears to have been done on the basis of arithmetical error. It has been held by the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Vadodara v. Asmi Industries, 1996 (85) E.L.T. 313 (T) that "a corrigendum can, of course, be issued to only correct clerical or typographical error(s) or other error apparent on the face of the record; but a substantive change in decision can only be made in accordance with law." In the present matter, apparently, the corrigendum has been issued only to correct a clerical/arithmetical mistake, which is permissible to do so. No averments have also been made by the appellants that the amount of deemed Modvat credit, now disallowed, is in any way wrong. In the case of ITC ....