Per V.K. Agrawal : The issue involved in this appeal, filed by Revenue, is whether a second show cause notice for demanding Central Excise duty can be issued to an assessee on gathering additional information/material/documents, etc.

2. Mrs. Charul Baranwal, learned SDR, submitted that M/s. Siddharth Tubes Ltd., manufacture M.S. Black Pipes and Galvanised M.S. Pipes; that in the price list filed by them, they had claimed deductions on account of post removal expenses (PRE in short) and sought permission for provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules; that a show cause notice dated 24.12.97 was issued to them for denying the permission for provisional assessment and for recovering the duty on account of PRE for the month of November, 1997; that subsequently five more show cause notices were issued for demanding duty on account of PRE for the period from December, 1997 to 14.3.1999; that the Assistant Commissioner adjudicated three show cause notice under a common Order-in-Original No. 7-9/99/1A/AC dated 29.1.99 rejecting the request for provisional assessment and confirming the demand of duty on the ground that the amount shown as post removal expenses was not inclusive of freight and actual delivery charges as claimed by the Respondents since the same were being charged separately over and above the post removal expenses; that the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected their appeal under Order-in-Appeal No. 338/CE/BPL/2001 dated 4.5.2001; that the fourth show cause notice has also been adjudicated under Order-in-Original No. 100/2000/11A/AC dated 28.1.2000; that remaining two show cause notices are pending adjudication. She, further, mentioned that meanwhile the Central Excise Officers checked the statutory and private records of the Respondents on 4.12.98 and found that in the sales orders sent by their Head Office for the dispatch of the finished goods, different prices were being charged from the customers whereas in the Excise invoices, the duty was being paid on one assessable value and was much lower as compared to the prices charged from the customers and the Respondents have undervalued their products with an intent to evade duty; that the scrutiny of the invoices and sales orders for the period November, 1997 to 14.3.99 also revealed that with a view to mislead the Department and with an intent to evade the payment of duty, the difference between the value arrived on the basis of the actual price charged from the customers and those declared to the Department had been termed as "PRE'; that PRE was not related to any of the expenses incurred by the Respondents after removal of the goods from the factory; that statements of their customers were also recorded which revealed that they had purchased finished gods from the Respondents as per the negotiated rates and all the expenses beginning from unloading charges at their go-down up to final sale were borne by them (customer); that, therefore, a show cause notice dated 26.5.2000 was issued to the Respondent for demanding duty amounting to Rs. 2,56,00,182/- short paid during the period from 8th November, 1997 to 14.3.99 besides imposing penalty and interest; that the Commissioner, Central Excise, under the Order-in-Original dated 30.1.2001 confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty holding that they wrongly claimed deductions on account of PRE; that the Tribunal, vide Final Order Nos. 295-98/2001-A dated 8.8.2001 remanded the matter to the Commissioner with the direction to examine whether the matters stood adjudicated by the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner and, if so, the same could not be adjudicated again as principles of res judicata would apply. She mentioned that the Commissioner, under the impugned Order, has held that in both cases, before the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner the quantum of post removal expenses remained the same; difference in duty amount was due to the fact that in the earlier cases PRE was considered on c