9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by this common order. 2.We have heard Shri G.B. Chattar, ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri T. Premkumar, ld. SDR for the respondents-Revenue. 3. Shri G.B. Chattar, ld. Advocate briefly mentioned the facts of the case and submitted that the main activity of the appellants was that of galvanizing materials received from their customers. It was his submission that the process of galvanizing did not amount to the process of manufacture. It was admitted that the appellants were engaged in the process of fabrication but according to him, the process of fabrication was different from the process of manufacture. The appellants had filed a classification list, had availed of small scale exemption and had paid excise duty on the job charg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he relevant ISS with latest amendment had to be conducted by the appellants in their works. If test facility was not available in their works, the tests were to be conducted by any standard testing laboratories and that the cost of testing has to be borne by the appellants (term No. 12 of the Contract referred). He pleaded that a correct view has been taken by the adjudicating authority and there was no marits in both these appeals. 5.We have carefully considered the matter. We find that the appellants were a regular excise licensee having license No. L-4 No. 2/TI-68/CTC-II/85. It is clear from page 52 of the paper book. He had filed regular classification list in which the details of the case manufactured by them was given. They were ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed period of limitation was available to the Department. 10. As regards the testing charges, we find from the contract that it was a necessary condition of the fabrication that the goods were required to be tested as per Indian Standard Specification. It is also clear that the testing charges were to be borned by the appellants. 11.Ld. Advocate had referred to page 37 of the paper book where testing charges have bee shown under three different heads, (i) minimum testing charges, (ii) additional testing charges and (iii) destruction charges. We consider that the additional testing charges, if incurred after the clearances of the goods, had not to be taken into account for arriving at the assessable value, subject to verification. Similar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
