9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Pramod Kumar, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Heard both sides. 2. The issue under consideration of this appeal is whether the goods received back are the damaged glass bottles which were originally cleared on payment of duty and again after re-making duty can be demanded on the ground that transit insurance claim was made. 3. The appellants are the manufacturer of excisable g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the demand and also imposition of an equal amount of penalty. The Original-Adjudicating Authority has also confirmed the same. 4. The ld. Counsel for the appellants relied upon the case law of CCE,. New Delhi v. Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd., 2004 (169) E.L.T. A36 (S.C.). In this case, earlier the Tribunal held that no duty is payable in respect of defective goods, which are received by manufacturer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld liable to duty element claimed on that instant on the fresh clearances. The ld. DR submits that the fresh clearances after re-processing is the cost on the inputs and as such the duty is levied on the value of goods shown. Now the contention raised by the ld. DR in force, the appellants have prepared the duty as per the invoice value. The next contention is that first Show-Cause-Notice issued b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion required and also looked into other aspects of the case including the limitation in respect of Show-Cause-Notice dated 3-7-2002 and as well as imposition of penalty when no material suppression of fact is claimed. After due consideration of the enquiry, the matter shall be disposed of in accordance with law. All issues are kept open. In the result, appeal is allowed in remand in above terms. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
