Geep Industrial Syndicate Vs. Collector of C. Ex. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the common appellant, engaged in the manufacture of torches, dry cells and miniature bulbs and effecting sales at factory gate and depots at uniform prices filed seven price lists no.29/80,39/80,48/80,49/80, 51/80,13/80 and 14/80 for the different products claiming various deductions. the assistant collector declined deductions. appellant filed a writ petition in the high court of allahabad which was ultimately disposed of directing that if the appellant files an appeal the same should be disposed of without reference to the delay. accordingly, seven appeals were filed before the collector (appeals) who allowed deduction of outward freight, octroi transit insurance and handling charges incurred on the despatches to out-station buyers and disallowed deduction on notional interest for the period of delay in realisation of sale price, interest on stocks stored in godowns, packing cost other than wooden packing and distribution expenses. this order is challenged in appeal no.e/1848/91-a. appellant should have filed seven separate appeals but has filed only one appeal. learned counsel for the appellant stated that this appeal may be treated as an appeal against order-in-appeal disposed of by the collector (appeals) in respect of price list no.48/80.2. in respect of three more price lists the assistant collector passed an order following the pattern set by the collector (appeals) in the previous appeals. this order having been confirmed by the collector (appeals) appellant has filed appeal no. e/1893/91-a. here also instead of filing three appeals appellant has filed only one appeal. learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this appeal may be treated as an appeal against the order passed by the collector (appeals) in appeal no. 107/90.3. in respect of three more price lists the assistant collector passed an order on the same pattern and this order having been confirmed by the collector (appeals), appeal no. e/2662/91-a has been filed.subsequently two supplementary appeals have been filed as appeal nos.e/355-356/91-a.4. learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned decision of the collector (appeals) are in conformity with the judgment in mrf ltd. [1995 (77) e.l.t. 433 (s.c.)]. his only objection is against the observation made by the assistant collector stating that if the audited figures regarding amounts of admissible deductions are less than the amounts allowed deduction provisionally, appellant has to pay duty on the differential value. learned counsel for the appellant seeks to challenge this observation. according to him, deduction has been claimed of specific amounts under each head, only on the basis of estimate and when actual figures are collected, the actual expenses may be a little more or little less than the estimated figures and in either case the department has to act on the actual figures. action on the actual figures cannot be restricted only to cases where the actual figures are less than the declared figures. action has to be taken even where the actual figures are shown to be more than the provisional figures. the submission is correct. we find that a similar submission has been accepted by the tribunal in order no. 5711/wzb/97, dated 26-12-1997 in appeal no. e/4841/92-a.5. we dispose of the appeals with the direction that actual figures relating to quantum of deduction will be taken into account at the time of finalisation of assessment irrespective of whether actual figures are less or more than the provisional figures.6. appeals are allowed to that extent. cross-objections being merely supportive are disposed of.

Judgment:
1. The common appellant, engaged in the manufacture of torches, dry cells and miniature bulbs and effecting sales at factory gate and depots at uniform prices filed seven price lists No.29/80,39/80,48/80,49/80, 51/80,13/80 and 14/80 for the different products claiming various deductions. The Assistant Collector declined deductions. Appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad which was ultimately disposed of directing that if the appellant files an appeal the same should be disposed of without reference to the delay. Accordingly, seven appeals were filed before the Collector (Appeals) who allowed deduction of outward freight, octroi transit insurance and handling charges incurred on the despatches to out-station buyers and disallowed deduction on notional interest for the period of delay in realisation of sale price, interest on stocks stored in godowns, packing cost other than wooden packing and distribution expenses. This order is challenged in Appeal No.E/1848/91-A. Appellant should have filed seven separate appeals but has filed only one appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellant stated that this appeal may be treated as an appeal against order-in-appeal disposed of by the Collector (Appeals) in respect of price list No.48/80.

2. In respect of three more price lists the Assistant Collector passed an order following the pattern set by the Collector (Appeals) in the previous appeals. This order having been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) appellant has filed Appeal No. E/1893/91-A. Here also instead of filing three appeals appellant has filed only one appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that this appeal may be treated as an appeal against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) in Appeal No. 107/90.

3. In respect of three more price lists the Assistant Collector passed an order on the same pattern and this order having been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals), Appeal No. E/2662/91-A has been filed.

Subsequently two supplementary appeals have been filed as Appeal Nos.

E/355-356/91-A.4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned decision of the Collector (Appeals) are in conformity with the judgment in MRF Ltd. [1995 (77) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.)]. His only objection is against the observation made by the Assistant Collector stating that if the audited figures regarding amounts of admissible deductions are less than the amounts allowed deduction provisionally, appellant has to pay duty on the differential value. Learned Counsel for the appellant seeks to challenge this observation. According to him, deduction has been claimed of specific amounts under each head, only on the basis of estimate and when actual figures are collected, the actual expenses may be a little more or little less than the estimated figures and in either case the department has to act on the actual figures. Action on the actual figures cannot be restricted only to cases where the actual figures are less than the declared figures. Action has to be taken even where the actual figures are shown to be more than the provisional figures. The submission is correct. We find that a similar submission has been accepted by the Tribunal in Order No. 5711/WZB/97, dated 26-12-1997 in Appeal No. E/4841/92-A.5. We dispose of the appeals with the direction that actual figures relating to quantum of deduction will be taken into account at the time of finalisation of assessment irrespective of whether actual figures are less or more than the provisional figures.

6. Appeals are allowed to that extent. Cross-objections being merely supportive are disposed of.