2017 (3) TMI 13

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... I find that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of stereo cassettes players/ recorders under their own brand name 'Royal' as also under the brand name of 'York' which belongs to another person. The appellant is clearing the 'York' brand goods on payment of duty. 2.  The factory was visited by Central Excise officers on 01.10.2002 who conducted various search and verifications. State .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... brand name 'Royal'. The said order of Commissioner (A) attained finality as neither side filed any appeal there against. 4.  During the re-adjudication, the appellant produced the chart before the adjudicating authority according to which, their duty liability would come to around Rs. 70,000/-. However, the Original Adjudicating Authority based upon the report of the Assistant Commissioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssistant Commissioner, that he after taking all the relevant factors into consideration has taken the cum-duty price as Rs. 366/-. As such, I do not find any infirmity in the said calculation and uphold the Order-in-Original to that extent. " 5.  Hence the present appeal. 6.  The appellant's grievance is that the report of the Assistant Commissioner upon which the lower authorities .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X