9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (5) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his appeal is against the order of the Collector, Central Excise, New Delhi, dated 8-6-1983, by which he confirmed the orders of the Assistant Collector, Faridabad, which demanded Central Excise Duty of ₹ 24,500/- from the appellants. 2. The appellants, manufacturer of tractors, recovered over and above the price declared in the price-list an amount of ₹ 2,45,000/- on account of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no suppression of facts or mis-statement by the appellants who were under the bonafide belief that these amounts need not have been included in the assessable value in the light of various judicial pronouncements at the relevant time. The second ground is that the show cause notice did not make any allegation of suppression of facts or mis-statements. 4. The learned Departmental Representati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... price list with reference to the charge of ₹ 50/- per tractor collected by the appellants. The finding that there were separate invoices also does not appear to be correct inasmuch as copies of invoices filed before me show that the amount of ₹ 50/- which is publicity charges has been included in the main invoice itself. The other side did not file any invoices to show that separate an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
