9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay confirming the duty demand of Rs. 82,798.70 P being the duty recoverable on additional amounts collected as packing charges and slitting charges respectively by the respondents, herein, who are manufacturers of PVC film and sheeting. 2. The duty demand was c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery of slitting charges was clearly mentioned in the invoices showing the assessable value and these invoices were verified by the Department and RT 12 assessments and therefore, non-mentioning of such charges in the price lists was not sufficient to hold them guilty of suppression so as to make available to the department, the extended period of limitation. The Additional Collector dropped the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmal packing, should have been accepted by the Adjudicating authority for the purpose of including the packing charges in the assessable value of the final product manufactured by the respondents. The Adjudicating authority has wrongly discarded this report, only holding that the report was not based on market enquiries. There is nothing to support his conclusion that the report was not based on m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de out a strong case for holding that the demand is time barred. There is no allegation that the asssessees had suppressed any material regarding the mode of packing and despatching goods. The allegation is only that they did not disclose recovery of slitting charges. Even on this aspect, we find that the Collector s factual finding that invoices mentioning the assessable value clearly showed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
