9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent. [Order per : Justice U.L. Bhat, President]. - Collector of Central Excise, Bombay has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 23-3-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay confirming the order dated 30-8-1984 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. 2. Respondent was engaged in the manufacture of Gramophone Records on its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the two contracts were really the two buyers and not the respondent who was only in the nature of hired labour and, therefore, liability to pay duty was on the two buyers and assessable value should be based on the prices charged by the two buyers to their wholesalers. The show cause notices alleged that though called upon to furnish to the Department the prices charged by the two buyers to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... records manufactured by the respondent. He dropped the notices and his order has been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals). 3. The orders to the extent they held that the two buyers cannot be regarded as manufacturer and the buyers' prices to their wholesalers cannot be the basis for determination of assessable value are not challenged by the appellant. The only contention put forward by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir wholesalers. It is also pointed out that the notices did not proceed on the basis that there was suppression of value to any extent on account of not adding the proportionate cost of the master tape to the assessable value. The appeal memorandum also does not state that this case had been put forward in the show cause notices and the lower authorities were in error in considering such case put ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
