TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al itself should be disposed of finally at this stage. Accordingly, we allow the present application and proceed to deal with the appeal. 2. The appellants, manufacturers of motor vehicles and parts thereof, had cleared certain consignments of motor vehicle parts on payment of duty during October, 1999 to March, 2000. But, at that time, they had not included the cost of packing in the assessable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent appeal. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered in favour of the appellants by the following decisions of the Tribunal :- (i) Amritsar Crown Caps (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh - 2002 (140) E.L.T. 437 (T). (ii) G.K. Steels (CBE) Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbatore - 2002 (53) RLT 1065 (T). (iii) CCE, Madurai v. Jkon Eng. (P) Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her decisions cited by the Counsel. 5. Having examined the submissions and the cited case law, we find that the issue arising in the instant case has already been settled by this Tribunal. Admittedly, the present appellants had paid the entire amount of duty covered by the impugned order, well before the issuance of the show cause notice. Hence there was no warrant for the department to propose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
