9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (10) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the time of personal hearing as well as the written submissions sent after the hearing. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners are manufacturers of excisable goods falling under Tariff Items 11 - B and 68 Central Excise Tariff. The goods were cleared from their factory in barrels after paying appropriate duty on the basis of the price-lists filed by them. After the goods are cleare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ders-In-Original were rejected by the Appellate Collector by a common order in appeal. The Appellate Collector referred to the petitioners contention that repacking was not a process of manufacture and held that the issue before him was different viz., what should be the correct assessable value of the goods and not whether repacking was a process of manufacture or not. He held that since the goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Collector. They have also produced photo copies of two invoices showing that the goods in bulk had been sold even at the factory gate at the prices declared in the price-lists. They have lastly contended that if these submissions were not acceptable to the Government, then they should at least get the benefit of the revision of the demand for differential duty which they had claimed on the groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioners cleared the goods in bulk after payment of appropriate duty, what was done to the duty paid goods subsequently after clearance should not be concern of the the department unless the petitioners could be said to have carried out a further process of manufacture on the goods. Government are in agreement with the petitioners contention that repacking of the duty paid goods in smaller conta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
