9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1049X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Therefore, Revenue held that Respondents are liable to pay duty on the price at which M/s GCIL is selling the tapes manufactured by the Respondents to their dealers - Held that:- In the Show Cause Notice, the allegation is that M/s GCIL are the manufacturers as per the provisions of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. In a similar situation we find that the Tribunal in the case of Collector ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby a demand of Rs. 3,11,049/- was dropped which was in respect of the period May 1983 to February 1984. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondents were engaged in the business of manufacture of audio cassettes. Show cause Notice was issued on 06.09.1984 demanding duty in respect of recorded copies on the ground that M/s Gramophone Company of India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e matter came to the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 08.02.2002 again remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh. In pursuance to the order passed by the Tribunal, the adjudicating authority again confirmed the demand. On appeal filed by the Respondents, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order set aside the demand. 5. The contention of the Revenue in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints reported in 1988 (38) ELT 535 (SC). Now the contention of the Revenue is that value in respect of master tape is to be added to arrive at the assessable value of the cassette manufactured by the Respondents for payment of Central Excise duty. 7. The Respondents relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector vs Music India Ltd reported in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rding the audio cassettes. 10. In the present case, we find that in the Show cause Notice there is a specific averment that M/s GCIL is the manufacturer and the present Respondents are liable to pay duty on the price at which M/s GCIL is selling. In case M/s GCIL is to be treated as manufacturer then the Respondents are not liable to pay any duty. In view of this, we find no merit in the appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
