9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Tata, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. - These 2 appeals arise out of a common Order-in-Original No. 26 to 28/2004 dated 31-8-2004 by which the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of duty against M/s. Food & Health Care Specialties by enhancing assessable value and has imposed penalties on both the Appellants. 2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant No. 1 is the manufacturer of the goods being job worker and has to pay duty on the basis of criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in the said judgment; that according to the Supreme Court the assessable value would be the value of the raw materials in the hands of job worker plus the value of the job work done plus manufacturing profit and manufacturing expenses; that the decision in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d with the above two decisions of the Apex Court." 3. Finally the learned Advocate submitted that the Commissioner has given a specific finding in Paragraph 34 of the impugned Order that "status of assessee was no better than that of a hired labour. In fact, they received only the rates mutually agreed upon for blending and packing of the said products, as per clause (vii) of their agreement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for rejecting the assessable value declared by them and for re-determining the assessable value by considering the sale price of M/s. Heinz (I) Pvt. Ltd. and for demanding Central Excise duty from Appellant No. 1 who are engaged in the manufacture of Glucon D. In the Adjudicating Order, as pointed out by the learned Advocate, the Commissioner has given a specific finding that the status of Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
