9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (6) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er per : Justice U.L. Bhat, President]. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 31-8-1988 passed by the Collector (Appeals) allowing the application (Appeal) filed by the Assistant Collector on the direction of the Collector (Appeals) against the order passed by the Assistant Collector dropping the proceedings initiated by two show cause notices dated 5-9-1985 and 9-2-1986. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent did not properly account for these goods and did not observed Central Excise formalities for clearing the same, and did not paid duty on the same. Show cause notices referred to non-payment of duty on tools, moulds and dies on which duty was payable. Notices proposed demand of duty on such goods and imposition of penalty. 3. Respondents submitted reply to the show cause notices start ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder in the two show cause notices dropping the proceedings but without assigning any reason. The order was challenged by the Department before the Collector (Appeals) who without granting respondent an opportunity of hearing allowed the appeal holding that since the respondent charged the cost of dies and moulds from the buyers, the value of tools would include the amount so charged. This order w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot be included in the value of component parts manufactured by the respondent. This part of the order is challenged by the Department. 6. According to Shri H.K. Jain, SDR, the component parts being dutiable, the value of dies and moulds should be reflected in the assessable value of the component parts since they were developed in the course of manufacture of tools for the purpose of manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sence of such an allegation in the show cause notices, the Collector (Appeals) could not have held that the cost of such goods should be included in the value of the component parts for the purpose of computing duty payable. Therefore, the contention urged by the Department in the present appeal is not tenable. 8. The appeal is dismissed. The cross objection being merely supportive is also close ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
