COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM Vs. MUKUND LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two revenue appeals arising from two different orders. As the issue is common in both the appeals, they are taken up together for disposal as per law. The orders are identical including the facts of the case. The findings recorded in Order -in -Appeal No. 74/2006 -CE dated 28 -2 -2006 in the case of M/s. Mukund Ltd. is reproduced herein below. I have gone through the record of this case and carefully considered submissions made the appellants as well as the department.

(2.) THE Order -in -Appeal No. 73/2006 dated 28 -2 -2006 in the case of M/s. Kalyani Steels Ltd. is identical as referred above.

(3.) REVENUE is aggrieved on these orders and submit that the letter dated 25 -8 -2000 issued by the assessee intimating the department that due to introduction of transaction value they had adopted the cost of production figures of 1999 -2000, as cost of production for the year 2000 -2001 was not yet ascertained and they would be able to arrive at the cost of production for the current year (2000 -2001) only after closing the books of accounts half yearly that is on 30th September 2000. They had also indicated that calculation of price based on cost of production was made once in six months only and that they could not arrive at the actual cost of production of finished goods at the time of production/clearance which could only be ascertained once in six months. Therefore, they requested the department that the determination of prices/duty payable for the year 2000 -2001 may be allowed to make clearances provisionally. Therefore, it is stated that since they had requested for provisional assessment in terms of Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules and had undertaken to abide with the Central Excise Rules, therefore, the proceedings should be considered as provisional and not finalized. Therefore, the Show Cause Notice issued for revising the prices and demanding duty should be accepted.