2001 (3) TMI 356

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ely consumed in the manufacture of plastic bags. The lay flat tubings were printed with the customers' logo. The show cause notice alleged that printing was a process of manufacture and therefore the cost of printing should be added when computing the assessable value. The Assistant Commissioner relying upon the Supreme Court judgment in the case of U.O.I. v. J.G. Glass Inds. Ltd. [1998 (97) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.) = 1998 (78) ECR 761], confirmed the demand and imposed the penalty. The Commissioner having upheld the order, the present appeal is before us. 3. Shri R.C. Saxena, learned counsel, fairly states that the cited order of the Supreme Court covers the issue but states that there was no cause for imposition of penalty. He submits that t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... consumed in the manufacture of plastic bags. The lay flat tubings were printed with the customers' logo. The show cause notice alleged that printing was a process of manufacture and therefore the cost of printing should be added when computing the assessable value. The Assistant Commissioner relying upon the Supreme Court judgment in the case of U.O.I. v. J.G. Glass Inds. Ltd. [1998 (97) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.) = 1998 (78) ECR 761], confirmed the demand and imposed the penalty. The Commissioner having upheld the order, the present appeal is before us. 3. Shri R.C. Saxena, learned counsel, fairly states that the cited order of the Supreme Court covers the issue but states that there was no cause for imposition of penalty. He submits that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nsumed in the manufacture of plastic bags. The lay flat tubings were printed with the customers' logo. The show cause notice alleged that printing was a process of manufacture and therefore the cost of printing should be added when computing the assessable value. The Assistant Commissioner relying upon the Supreme Court judgment in the case of U.O.I. v. J.G. Glass Inds. Ltd. [1998 (97) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.) = 1998 (78) ECR 761], confirmed the demand and imposed the penalty. The Commissioner having upheld the order, the present appeal is before us. 3. Shri R.C. Saxena, learned counsel, fairly states that the cited order of the Supreme Court covers the issue but states that there was no cause for imposition of penalty. He submits that the ass .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X