9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ass, the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of glass vials. It cleared its entire production to Sarabhai Chemicals, Vadodara, packed in cardboard boxes which that company made available. A dispute arose between the appellant and the department as to the includability in the value of the vials of the cost of such boxes. On a writ petition filed by the appellant, the Gujarat High Court remanded the matter for decision to the Asst. Commissioner. The Asst. Commissioner [whose order was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals)] orders holding that such costs were includable and confirmed the demand for duty. The manufacturer appealed to the Tribunal. Disposing of that appeal, the Tribunal held that by application of the ratio of the judgmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eaking order after giving an opportunity to the assessees to have their say before him. The appeal is allowed by way of remand. 4. In compliance with these directions, the Asst. Commissioner passed orders on 16-2-99. He held that Sarabhai Chemical and Packart Glass were independent entities within the meaning of Central Excise Law , therefore held the packing material supplied by the former not to be includable in the assessable value of the goods of the latter. 5. The department filed an appeal against this order to the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal raised two grounds. The first was that both units are owned part and parcel by Ambalal Sarabhai and the issue of Central Excise licences cannot alter the status of the company as a s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-condition for availing the exemption. See Synthetics and Chemicals v. CCE [1997 (93) E.L.T. 92], Mahindra and Mahindra v. CCE [1999 (31) RLT 257] and Gujarat Paint and Allied Products v. CCE [1993 (68) E.L.T. 644]. The department s appeal in this regard has therefore no merit. 7. As to the other issue, the department s appeal is clearly beyond the scope of the remand order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal s order did not require the adjudicating authority to consider whether the packing was durable or not durable and the Asst. Collector has lightly not considered it. This ground in the department s appeal raises a completely new element which was not present in the earlier proceedings. The Commissioner s order giving recognition to this el ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
