2012 (5) TMI 13

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... th, Advs. for the Appellant   Harish Chandra, Sr. Adv.; Ajay Sharma, Naresh Kaushik, Arvind Kumar Sharma and Shreekant N. Terdal, Advs. for the Respondent   JUDGEMENT   1. Applications for amendment of cause title is allowed in terms of prayer (a). Cause title has been amended accordingly.   2. These appeals by the assessee, under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aised in these appeals relates to the determination of the cost of raw material in the assessable value of the final product for the purpose of levy of Excise duty.   5. At the very outset, it is urged by Mr. Lakshmikumaran , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the main order dated 31st May, 2006, passed by the Tribunal was an ex parte order. The application filed on b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... earned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, on the other hand, submits that since the main issue arising in these appeals has been dealt with by the Tribunal, in the light of the decision of this Court in Ujagar Prints v. Union of India and Others 1988 (38) ELT 535, no useful purpose would be served by remanding the case back to the Tribunal.   7. We have bestowed our anxious c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X