Archana Wadhwa, J. - (1.)AFTER hearing both the sides, we find that the appellant is engaged in the processing of fabrics on job work basis. The duty of excise was being paid on the said processed fabrics as per Ujagar Prints formula i.e. the cost of the raw material + the processing charges, which included the margin of profit of the appellant. According to the appellant, such job charges for various types of fabrics were being finalized by the principal manufacturer and there were certain variations at the last moment. Such variations in job charges was sometimes not taken into account by the appellant and the duty was paid on the basis of the job charges originally agreed between the appellant and the original manufacturer. This resulted in payment of duty in excess, in some of the cases, where the job charges were subsequently reduced and in short payment of duty, where the job charges were subsequently enhanced.
(2.)THE appellant's factory was visited by the Central Excise officers on 30th April 2002, who conducted various checks and verifications. The incidents where the job charges were subsequently enhanced, resulting in less payment of duty were picked up by the officers and on that basis proceedings were initiated by issuance of show cause notice dated 3/2/03. The said notice proposed confirmation of demand of duty of Rs. 7,42,408/ - alongwith confirmation of demand and imposition of penalty. In addition there was proposal to confirm wrongly availed deemed credit of around Rs. 1,00,000/ -. The said show cause notice culminated into the impugned order passed by the lower authorities.
Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has not challenged the confirmation of wrongly availed deemed credit. The entire dispute relates to confirmation of demand of duty of Rs. 7,42,408/ -. It is seen that during the course of adjudication, the appellant specifically brought to the notice of Adjudicating Authority that there was excess payment of duty to the tune of Rs. 6,26,223/ - in respect of clearances of the processed fabrics, where the job charges were reduced. As such, it was only a mistake on their part to continue to pay duty on the basis of the agreed upon job charges without taking into consideration the subsequently enhanced or reduced job charges. As such, they prayed for adjusting the excess paid duty against the short paid duty and offered to deposit the balance amount of duty, subject to the availment of Notification No. dated 29/6/01, which allowed deemed credit of 50% of duty paid on the final product.

(3.)WHILE dealing with the above submissions of the appellant, the Adjudicating Authority observed that every assessment is an independent assessment and where the Revenue has raised the demand of duty based upon short payment of duty by adopting lower assessable value, the said demand cannot be adjusted against the excess paid duty. If the appellant is aggrieved with the excess payment of duty, they are within their rights to file a refund claim. As regards, availability of deemed credit notification, he observed that the same should have been availed at the time of original clearance of the goods.