9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (7) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akraborthy, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : I.J. Rao, Member (T)]. - Both the appeals involve the same issues and facts though for different periods. They were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the appellants manufacture pressure cookers (Tariff Item 54) and aluminium utensils falling under Tariff Item 68. During the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation No. 141/79. In the earlier Notification (71/78), it was the value of specified goods that was to be taken to decide the eligibility for exemption. By the amendment, it was the value of all excisable goods that was to be considered for the same purpose. 3. In view of the amendment, the Central Excise Department felt that the appellants, in not having taken into consideration the value of alu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods but later it became the settled law that even exempted goods were excisable goods. Shri Lachman Dev pleaded that it was only on account of the mis-understanding and not out of any mala fide intention that the appellants did not take into consideration the value of aluminium utensils, which were totally exempted from duty. 4. The learned Consultant strongly relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e considered the submissions made by both sides. It is now well settled, as admitted by both sides, that exempted goods are "excisable goods" for the purpose of computation of value. Therefore, so far as the merits are concerned, the appellants have no case. 7. With regard to limitation we, on perusal of the show cause notice, find no allegation of suppression or mis-statement therein. Such alleg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
