2001 (3) TMI 512

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Adjournment is requested on the ground that the Counsel for the appellant will not be available. We do not consider such an assertion sufficient to grant adjournment. We have read the memorandum of appeal, and heard the Departmental representative. 2. The appellant manufactures steel forgings. Notice was issued to it proposing to add to the assessable value of these forgings the cost of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... process of manufacture, from the raw material to the proof machining. He therefore distinguished the decision in Shree Pipe Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1992 (59) E.L.T. 462 and held that the cost would be includible. 4. The appeal reiterates the contention that the test carried out by Lloyds Ltd. was an additional test and that the goods in any case became marketable prior to such test being done. It quot .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... this decision that the goods are already marketable may not apply. While it is contended in the appeal that the test by Lloyds Ltd. was additional to the test by the appellant and therefore optional, there is not the slightest evidence cited to support it. We are therefore of the view that this whether the testing by Lloyds Ltd. was in addition to the testing by the appellant, and, being at the i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X