2002 (2) TMI 559

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... [Order per : Justice K.K. Usha, President]. The issue that has come up for consideration is whether the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the levy of duty in respect of cost of pattern tooling carried out by the appellant for M/s. Mahindra Mahindra is to be sustained. It is the case of the appellant that the apportioned cost of pattern tooling for M/s. Mahindra Mahind .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e pattern was developed by the appellants in their factory. Therefore, no duty liability can be cast on the appellant. We find merit in the contention raised by the appellant. There is no material available before the Commissioner (Appeals) to show that during the relevant period supply of castings had been made to M/s. Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. That being so, the demand of duty has to be held as p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X