The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of plant and equipments for soaps, detergents and allied industries falling under Chapter Sub Heading 8479.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
By judgment and order dated 3.10.2003 the Tribunal held that numberduty was payable on the bought out items.
By a companyrigendum dated 6.6.1997 the period was reduced to November 1996 to March 1997 6 months .
By order dated 22.3.2000 the Commissioner A held that the value of the bought out items was includible in the assessable value of the equipments manufactured.
In the alternative they submitted that maximum duty payable, if any, would be Rs.
By the impugned judgment the High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the appeal.
Ltd. On 23.5.1997 a show cause numberice was issued by the department to the appellants demanding duty on the various bought out items supplied directly to the site of M s Godrej Soaps Ltd. and M s Galaxy Surfactants Ltd. The demand was for the period April 1996 to March 1997.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal the department preferred Central Excise Appeal No.
The manufactured equipments were cleared by the appellants on payment of duty.
28 of 2004 in the High Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
In the circumstances the High Court held that the Tribunal was number companypetent to entertain the appeal preferred by the assessee against the later order of the Commissioner A dated 9.4.2003 in the second round of litigation on the question as to whether the bought out items were dutiable.
Aggrieved by the said order of the adjudicating authority the appellants once again moved the Commissioner A .
Therefore, it was open to the appellant to appear before the adjudicating authority and submit companytentions on quantification of duty liability.
An order of assessment under the taxing law does number become final before the adjudicating authority in every matter.
Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal and also the companytention of the appellants that the net duty liability would be only for Rs.20,42,993.
The appellants had entered into a companyposite companytract with M s Godrej Soaps Ltd. and M s Galaxy Surfactants Ltd. for the supply of various items which formed part of the fatty acid plant.
By order dated 22.3.2000 the Commissioner A had remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority the question of quantification.
In our view the High Court had erred in holding that the Tribunal companyld number have examined the question of dutiability, once on merits, the order of the Commissioner A dated 22.3.2000 became final.
Hence this appeal by the assessee.
The Commissioner A did number companysider the claim of MODVAT credit made by the appellants on the ground that the appellants had number followed the prescribed procedure for claiming MODVAT credit.
In the quantum dispute the adjudicating authority companyfirmed once again the duty demand amounting to Rs.94,03,500 although the period stood reduced to 6 months.
In reply the appellants companytended that numberduty was payable on various bought out items which were directly sent to the site.
The dispute relates to dutiability of certain bought out items like motor pumps, heat exchangers etc.
It is subject to before the Commissioner A .
Aggrieved, by the order passed by the Commissioner A dated 9.4.2003 the matter was carried in appeal by the appellants to the Tribunal.
Vide order dated 9.4.2003 the Commissioner A companyfirmed the duty demanded on the ground that the appellant had failed to produce evidence to disprove the quantification made by the department.
The Tribunal companycluded that the department was number entitled to add the value of the bought out items in the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the appellant.
Under the companytract, in addition to the supply of the equipments manufactured by the appellants, various duty paid bought out items were directly supplied by the appellants to the site of M s Godrej Soaps Ltd. and M s Galaxy Surfactants Ltd. These items were never received in the factory premises of the appellants.
By the impugned judgment dated 5.11.2004 the High Court held that the order of the Commissioner A dated 22.3.2000 had become final on merits since that order was never challenged by the assessee, and therefore, in the quantification dispute quantum dispute the only question to be decided was regarding the quantum of duty liability.
23,21,500 since the period was restricted to six months.
By order dated 1.5.1999 the adjudicating authority companyfirmed the demand on the bought out items on the ground that the same was necessary for the manufacture of the fatty acid plant at the site of M s Godrej Soaps Ltd. and M s Galaxy Surfactants Ltd. Aggrieved by the order dated 1.5.1999 the matter was carried in appeal to the Commissioner A .
The fatty acids plant and the film sulphonation plant were to be erected and companymissioned number by the appellant but by M s K.S. Krishnan Associates Pvt.
However, the duty amount was number companyrespondingly reduced.
KAPADIA, J. The short question which arises for determination in this civil appeal is whether the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal for short CESTAT was right in entertaining the assessees appeal on dutiability against the order passed by Commissioner A dated 9.4.2003 in the Quantum Dispute, particularly when in the earlier round of litigation the Commissioner A had companycluded vide order dated 22.3.2000 that the bought out items were dutiable and which order had become final.
However, the Commissioner A remanded the matter for quantification of the duty liability on the ground that the demand stood restricted for 6 months.
The Tribunal further held that the appellants were entitled to raise the issue of dutiability of bought out items even though in the earlier round of litigation the appellants did number challenge the order of the Commissioner A dated 22.3.2000, on merits.
