9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (12) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, S.D.R., for the Respondent. ORDER M/s. General Electric Co., Calcutta has filed a Revision Application before the Government of India and it is the Board's Order-in-Appeal No. 169/B of 1981 dated 28th February, 1981 wherein the Board upheld the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta and confirmed the demand for Central Excise duty of ₹ 37,500/-. The short point for decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly a demand for payment of duty on the entire value of resisters was raised. Shri J.N. Roy appearing on behalf of the appellants argued that the starting resisters are composed of seven components, namely - (1) Resistances (2) Insulator (3) Copper and Bus bars (4) M.S. Frame (Mild Steel) (5) Synthetic cover (Asbestos) (6) Washers (two types) namely made of bestoball and asbestos and Mild steel (7) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -Original by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta and argued that the Central Excise duty in this case has rightly been levied on the value of the final product manufactured by the appellants since they were not entitled to the exemption under the aforesaid Notification No. 119/75. He cited para 8 of the Supreme Court judgment in the matter of Union of India v. Madura Coats referred to above. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Notification No. 119/75. Regarding the other argument that the appellants manufactured the resisters with only 8 workers and that too without the aid of power, it appears that this was not raised before the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta and, therefore, the Board in its Appellate order had not taken it into consideration. Apparently, the appellants have not thought it fit to agitate this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
