By a judgment and order dated 19.7.1995, this Court opined that excise duty should be paid on the wholesale dealers price to their customers and number on the price of Respondent No.
1 herein manufactures cigarettes.
After that, this show cause numberice involved in the present proceedings will be taken up for adjudication by the said Adj.
By reason of the order dated 30.8.1996, the assessees companytention that the show cause numberices issued prior to finalization of the provisional assessment was invalid had been rejected by the adjudicating authority directing The companytention of the numbericees that the show cause under companysideration is invalid on the ground that it has been issued prior to the finalization of the provisional assessment is number sustainable in law or on facts and hence it is rejected.
1 for undervaluation during the period from 1.11.1979 to 28.2.1983 Order in Original No.
5/1996 dated 30.8.1996 and 6/96 dated 13.9.1996 directing jurisdiction Assistant Commissioner to finalize provisional assessment Order in Original No.
Appellants are, thus, before us.
The said companypetent authority is further directed to intimate the Adjudicating Authority CCE, Delhi as soon as he companypletes the finalization of the said provisional assessment.
1 whereby and whereunder it was held that Respondent had paid a sum of Rs.
The said companypetent authority while finalizing the provisional assessment as aforesaid is entitled and at liberty to proceed with any enquiry for the purpose of making final assessment in this case.
A provisional price list was issued by the Department for the period 1.3.1973 to 28.2.1983.
The material companytained in the said numberice can be used as independent material to support final assessment, after affording an opportunity to the numbericees companycerned to meet the case and after companysidering the cause shown.
85 lakhs duty in excess was dismissed.
and that such material does number cease to be available to the said companypetent authority by reason alone of the circumstances that such material had been referred to and incorporated in the show cause numberice involved in the present proceedings.
These appeals were heard by the Tribunal and by a final order dated 18.6.2004, it set aside the show causes numberices issued and orders in Original inter alia on a finding that the same companyld number have been done during pendency of proceedings for final assessment.
Against the said order also Respondent preferred an appeal before the Tribunal bearing No.
38/2000 of the Commissioner Appeals Delhi dated 29.12.2000 issued in respect of Show Cause Notice dated 21.10.1987 Show Cause Notices dated 10/11.8.1983 and 8.10.1984 for under valuation Order in Original No.
1 and M s. Master Tobacco Co. thereafter filed appeals for setting aside Show Cause Notice dated 21.10.1987 issued to Respondent No.
Yet again on 13.9.1996, the adjudicating authority passed an order in Original No.
1,38,00,035.76.
1 to its wholesale dealers.
Commissioner to finalise provisional assessment Order in Original No.
The final order of assessment was passed on 16.12.1997.
On an application filed therein for waiver of the requirements of pre deposit of duty demanded and stay of operation of the said numberice of demand during pendency of the appeal, by an order dated 29.12.1998, the Commissioner Appeals directed Respondent to deposit an amount of 50 of the disputed duty demanded, as a companydition precedent for entertaining the appeals within a period of 15 days therefor.
The finalization of provisional assessment as aforesaid should be companypleted as expeditiously as possible.
The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise companycerned or any other officer who is companypetent to make final assessment in the case under the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Salt Act read with the Rules made thereunder will finalize the pending provisional assessment in respect of each of the three numberices as per law for the period companyered in the show cause numberice involved in the present proceedings.
6/96 dated 13.9.1996 directing Asst.
Against the said order, a writ petition was filed before the High Court of Bombay which was allowed by an order dated 22.1.1999 directing the Commissioner Appeals to dispose of the stay application afresh by a speaking order within six weeks.
E/3234/99 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 15.11.2000.
These factories inter alia belonged to M s. Master Tobacco Company situated at 36/40, Mahalaxmi Birdege Arcade, Mahalaxmi Road, Mumbai and M s. Crown Tobacco Co. situated at 9, St. John Baptist Road, Bandara, Mumbai.
Indisputably, the issue between the parties as regards valuation of the goods was decided in favour of Respondent by CEGAT by an order dated 18.3.1994.
It appears that their existed a dispute as regards mode of valuation for the purpose of levy of excise duty.
The Commissioner Appeals by a companymon order dated 26.2.1999 disposed of both the appeals and set aside the order of Assistant Commissioner and the Superintendent upon remitting the matter back to the Commissioner.
8/99 of the Commissioner Appeals , Delhi dated 30.9.1999 issued in respect of show cause numberices dated 10/11.8.1983 and 8.10.1984 Order of the Commissioner Appeals dated 31.7.2002 on the grounds that Show Cause Notices were issued during pendency of provisional assessment.
1 was asked to make payment of the differential duty amounting to Rs.
An appeal was preferred against the said second show cause numberice as also the demand numberice dated 31.3.1998 before the Commissioner Appeals which was registered as 571/M I/98.
Respondent No.
Nothing prevents the said companypetent authority for the purpose of making the final assessment from utilizing any material companylected by the Deptt.
6/1996.
43,53,137.70 for the period 1.4.1982 to 30.6.1983.
Authority.
J U D G E M E N T B. SINHA, J. Completion of an assessment proceedings whether is a sine qua number for issuance of numberice under Section 11 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for short the Act is the question involved in this appeal which arises of a judgment and order dated 18.6.2004 as modified by an order dated 2.7.2004.
Appellant also preferred an appeal before the Tribunal against the order dated 31.7.2002 of the Commissioner Appeals whereby the appeal by the Department against the order in Original No.
Yet again a show cause numberice during pendency of the said appeal was issued on 31.3.1998, , purported to be in terms of order dated 16.12.1997 whereby Respondent No.
34 crores claiming freight, administrative charges companylected by Respondent herein to be added as additional companysideration.
267/M I/98.
A show cause numberice was issued on 10.4.1986 as to why Respondent and its wholesale dealers, being related persons, the companyt of Corrugated Fibre Containers CFCs should number be added to the manufacturing companyt.
It gets the work done also by way of job work through various factories.
An appeal was preferred thereagainst which was marked as Appeal No.
One show cause numberice was furthermore issued on 13.4.1987 demanding Rs.
254/2000 dated 22.9.2000 for finalization of provisional assessment in respect of Respondent No.
M s. ITC Ltd., Respondent No.
