9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e aforesaid activity of job work in Item 7 of the classification list claiming as particulars of other goods produced or manufactured and intended to be removed by the assessee. In other words, they claimed that these activities of job work done by them were not excisable. Therefore, they did not include the job charges claimed by them in the computation of aggregate clearance during the financial year in the terms of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. This was also noticed by the Department as is evident from the Superintendent s letter dated 17-4-1989 wherein it was stated that the appellants herein had not included the value of job work done by them in the assessable value of the goods manufactured by them. If so included, they were liable t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... job work on behalf of various parties. They have also claimed that the activity of job work was not an excisable activity. Therefore, no duty was leviable. Prior to the filing of the classification list, learned Advocate submits that a letter was written by the appellant dated 24-3-1986 in which these entire activities of job work were mentioned in that letter addressed to the Collector. Superintendent (Technical) responding to the appellants on behalf of the Collector told them to contact the Assistant Collector, MOD-III. In pursuance of the said letter of the Superintendent (Technical), the appellant approached the Superintendent, Mayapuri, New Delhi vide their letter dated 25-3-1986 and submitted the classification list as mentioned abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the appellant has not disclosed all the facts. No mention of the value etc. seems to have been made thereafter. No efforts have been made to bring on record the correct value of the raw material received for job work even after issue of show cause notice. Therefore, the plea of limitation has been set aside. 7. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced on both the sides on the question of limitation. We observe that the appellant had clearly mentioned in their classification list in Item 7 of Form-1 that they are undertaking various job work activities for their customers and they consider the said activities to be non-dutiable activity by mentioning so under Item 7. The Adjudicating Officer s finding to the effect that the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
