9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Respondent. [Order per : Justice K.K. Usha, President]. - In this appeal, at the instance of the assessee, the challenge is against the Order-in-Appeal No. 152/CE/CHD-II/2002, dated 30-3-2002 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh. Two issues raised in this appeal are - (1) whether royalty collected by the appellants from the bottlers is liable to be added to the assessable value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate manufactured by it has to be classified under heading 2107.99, the appellant placed reliance on Board's order No. 23/13/93, dated 20-12-93 followed by Trade Notice No. 2/94, dated 7-1-94 issued by different Collectorates including Ahmedabad Collectorate, copy of which is made available before us. The Board has clarified that Synthetic Soft Drink Concentrate packed and marketed shall henceforth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that it is open to the assessee to question the rate of duty originally applied when assessment is reopened and differential duty is demanded. A similar view was taken in Polydyne Corporation v. CCE, Mumbai - 1999 (108) E.L.T. 94. 4. Learned Departmental Representative would submit that since the show cause notice was issued prior to Board's order dated 20-12-93 and since the period un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty would be only 20%. The appellant has given a calculation of the differential duty payable if the concentrate has to be classified under sub-heading 2107.99. It is as follows : The assessable value of concentrates cleared during the period 1-4-93 to 24-11-93 (being the period during which the appellants have charged royalty from the bottlers) 12,00,46,027 Duty paid @ 25% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
