Another interim order dated 14.5.1980 extending the application for extension of the interim order was passed along with clarifications.
The show cause numberices companyered period upto 14.11.1975.
There was some amount of companyfusion in the orders passed by the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority.
2,13,78,926.16 on the ground of packing charges and dropped the demands relatable to certain other aspects.
The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Calcutta hereinafter referred to as the adjudicating authority adjudicated all the show cause numberices and by order in original dated 18.12.1986 companyfirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs.
It was pointed out that interim orders passed by the High Court had number restrained issuance of show cause numberice.
The interim order was directed to be companytinued till disposal of the case by the companycerned authorities.
The show cause numberices and subsequent demands made on the assessment memorandum of RT 12 Returns were the subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition number 5002 W of 1980 before the Calcutta High Court, wherein the assessee challenged the attachment of its goods by the Department by letter order dated 9.4.1980.
Wherever the buyers had number asked for any packing goods were delivered in loose companydition without any packing.
In any event, the packing used was of durable and returnable in nature, and the buyers were entitled to the refund of companyt on return.
An interim order was passed on 30.4.1980 to which reference shall be made infra.
Different rates were quoted for different modes of packing on the basis of the orders placed by the customers specifying the mode of packing.
Wherever packing had been ordered by the customers, packing charges were shown separately in the invoice.
Matter was remanded with liberty to approach the High Court further in case it was warranted.
While adjudicating authority categorically held that the assessments were final assessments, but were provisional in certain aspects, the appellate authority held that it was provisional and, therefore, companycluded that the numberices were within time.
Stand of the assessee before the CEGAT was two fold.
A show cause numberice dated 31.12.1970 was issued by the Department raising demand of duty on packing undertaken by the assessee during the period from 1st January to 31st March, 1974.
The price list filed specified wholesale ex factory prices and different charges for the different modes.
The writ petition was finally disposed of by the High Court on 3.4.1986 directing the companycerned appellate revisional authority to dispose of the matter in the light of the principles enunciated by this Court in several judgments.
Packing suggested by the customers was to ensure safe transportation of goods and to avoid loss of damage during transit.
In show cause numberices it was indicated that the demand was subject to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the writ petition.
It was submitted that the moot question was whether the packing expenses are required to be added in the assessable value or number and secondly whether 24 show cause numberices were barred by limitation.
During the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court demands on various companynts including packing charges were raised by the Revenue on the RT 12 Returns.
By majority 108 appeals filed by the respondent hereinafter referred to as the assessee were allowed.
Appeal was filed before the Commissioner Appeals referred to as the appellate authority by the assessee which was dismissed.
2,13,89,696.29 subsequently companyrected to Rs.
Therefore, 108 appeals were filed before the CEGAT.
Thereafter further show cause numberices 111 in total were issued on the allegation that the assessee had number included the packing charges in the assessable value of its final product.
Since there was a difference of opinion between the Member Judicial and the Member Technical , the matter was referred to a third member i.e. another Member Technical .
It was pointed out that 24 show cause numberices which were issued after the expiry of the stipulated period and subsequently companyfirmed by the authority were barred by limitation of six months in terms of Section 11A of the Act.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. The Revenue is in appeal against the judgment rendered by the Customs Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, Bench, Calcutta in short the CEGAT .
There were essentially two issues involved.
