9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J) (Oral)]. The appellants are required to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 1,56,25,762/-. The appellants are manufacturing Control Cables, Speedometer Cables and other cables falling under CSH 8714.00, 8483.00 and 8708 respectively of the first Schedule of CET Act. They had filed all declarations to the department and had clearly indicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ideration for determining the duty. Therefore, the appellants took the contention that the Cost Construction Method adopted under Rule 8 of Valuation Rules was correct and they are not required to pay the duty in terms of Rule 11 as contended in the Show Cause Notice. The Commissioner, in the impugned order, rejected their plea and held in para 15 that all the processes carried out in the sister u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the terms of Show Cause Notice both in adopting Rule 7 as well as in rendering the finding that the processes carried out in the other unit does not amount to a process of manufacture. It is his submission that those processes result into new goods and complete product emerges at their sister unit. It is for the other Commissioner to go into that question and not for the Commissioner in this mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and there is no infirmity in the order. He prays for putting the appellants on terms. 4. On a careful consideration, prima facie, the submissions made by the learned Counsel is correct. The Commissioner has proceeded beyond the terms of Show Cause Notice in adopting the provisions of Rule 7 which was not alleged in the Show Cause Notice, The appellants had not been given an opportunity to contes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
