9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (12) TMI 204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r found in favour of the respondents. The Executive Collector, namely, Collector of Central Excise, Meerut has questioned the finding of the Collector (Appeals) in both these matters. 2. We have heard Shri M.S. Arora, DR, for the appellant - Collector and Shri J.S. Kapil, Advocate, for the respondents. 3. In the appeal memorandum, a ground has been taken that proforma credit of the type referred to earlier is not permissible since wrapping or packing papers cannot be considered as a material or component part used in the manufacture of other varieties of paper. This issue has been considered by the Tribunal in Collector of Central Excise, Indore v. Orient Paper and Industries Ltd. -1984 (18) E.L.T. 88. It was held that just because the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l has also drawn our attention to the record of personal hearing before the Assistant Collector on 24-5-1977. The relevant portion of the record reads as follows :- The value of the wrapper is included in the value of the packed paper but the assessee is paying duty on the wrapping paper at the time of its issue for purposes of packing within the factory. Thus instead of any profit, the assessee is paying double duty on the wrapper and as such the percentage of duty paid at one stage should further be deducted from the assessable value proposed to be fixed as submitted above, efforts will be made to work out the cost of the wrapping paper and instead of adding the margin of profit to the value so worked the duty initially paid at the tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e investigated with reference to the claim of the respondents under Rule 56A. It is relevant to note that the decision relied upon for the Revenue -is on the subject of seeking to support a quasi-judicial order on grounds not stated therein - not on the subject of seeking to support an appeal on grounds not taken up before the original authority but not requiring any fresh fact-finding. As such, we do not see how the said judgment could have come in the way of the Collector (Appeals) entertaining the additional ground and adjudicating thereon. 7. Another decision relied upon for the Revenue is the Bombay High Court s judgment in Bush India Ltd. v. Union of India - 1980 (6) E.L.T. 258. The principle laid down is the same as in the Cibatul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that the finding of the Income Tax Officer not having been appealed against in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it must be assumed that the assessee was not aggrieved by the finding of the Income Tax Officer and had accepted the same. Further, the finding of the Income Tax Officer not being the subject matter of appeal before the Appellate Asst. Commissioner and he not being called upon to adjudicate on the same and not having adjudicated upon the correctness or otherwise of the same, there could not be any decision of the Appellate Asst. Commissioner on the finding of the Income Tax Officer, and, therefore, it could not be said that the assessee was aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Asst. Commissioner in respect o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
