9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... included in the assessable value of the paper and paperboard cleared on payment of duty under the gate passes concerned. The appellants have accordingly filed the present Miscellaneous application for allowing the presentation of the said additional evidence as is indicated in this Miscellaneous application under Rule 23 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules. 2. Briefly the issue concerns the question of whether the cost of mill wrapping paper was included in the final products assessable value when the same was cleared on duty. The appellants have been claiming that this was so and therefore, the mill wrapping paper was correctly cleared for captive consumption in terms of Explanation (iii) to the Notification No. 217/86 as amended from time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned Senior Counsel submits that the Notification in question and in particular, Explanation (iii) does not talk of the weight of the inputs at all, it only says that the cost of those inputs are to be considered as the whether they are included or not in the cost of the final products. Therefore, he submits that the entire discussion in the order impugned is irrelevant to the issue in question. Even in the show-cause notice, pursuant to which the order impugned was passed, the allegation of the Revenue was in respect to the non-inclusion of the cost of mill wrapping paper and there was no specific allegation regarding the weight of the said paper had not been shown etc. The learned Senior Counsel takes us through the findings and sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DR says that this approach makes the GSM declared on record to be only an estimated one and not actual one and in effect amounts to manipulation of actual GSM of the final products. He submits that the Commissioner has rightly found that the appellants have taken unfair advantage of the tolerance available under the scheme. He submits that in para 16 of the order impugned, the learned Commissioner has very clearly given his findings as to why the demand is not hit by limitation as the earlier orders cited by the appellants were with respect to Modvat credit and not with respect to the present issue. The order impugned has also clearly shown that the appellants letter dated 27-8-1980 did not mention the mill wrapping paper and neither was c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
