9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order]. Three notices were issued to the appellant proposing denial of Modvat credit taken by it of the duty paid on woven sacks of high density poly ethelene used by it to pack the leather cloth that it manufactured for sale in the market. Two notices dated 19-8-1996 and Feb. 1997, alleged contravention of the provisions of Rule 57A inasmuch as that the input HDPE sac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the duty paid was not admissible in terms of sub-rule (2)(iii) of Rule 57B. He therefore denied the credit and imposed penalty. He therefore found that the cost of packing had not been included in the assessable value of the finished goods. This order having been confirmed on appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) the matter is before this Tribunal. 2. Counsel for the appellant states that he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce has already been indicated above. There is no whisper in any of them as to the cost of the packing not being included in the value of the finished product, or the packing being made out of particular material which was specifically excluded. In the definition of inputs contained in the explanation below sub-rule (1) of Rule 57A. There is nothing in Rule 57A or any of the other rules relating to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wer only the case made out in the notice and not successive cases made out in the proceedings. As to the case that was contained in the notice, the contention that it is not relevant whether the packing is secondary or any other kind of packing has to be accepted. There is nothing in the rule making any such distinction and justifying denial of credit on packing which in the opinion of the depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
