9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants. We also note that the appellants were unrepresented on all the previous occasions, when the matter came on board. The same was accordingly being adjourned in the interest of justice. 2. We have heard learned DR and have gone through the impugned orders. As per facts on record appellant is engaged in the manufacture of plastic packaging tubes used in packing cream etc. Apart from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al adjudicating authority confirming demand of duty as proposed in the notice and imposing identical amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act. Further penalty of Rs.5,000/- was imposed under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 4. On appeal against the above order, the same was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal. 5. The main issue required to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp; 6. We find that the Tribunal in the later decision in the case of Paper Products Ltd. Vs. CCE Mumbai reported in 2005 (189) ELT 248 (Tri. Mumbai) has held that the development/maintenance of design and art work charges recovered from the customers are includable in the assessable value. As the law on the issue is no more res-integra, we hold that such extra consideration was includable in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
