TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o blend exclusively the lubricants of the brand name Mobil on behalf of ELP out of the inputs to be supplied by IML and to fill them into containers and drums to be supplied by IML. Notices issued to these parties in September, 2001 proposed to recovery duty on the lubricants cleared NPL in 50 ltrs. drums under Section 4A of the Act based upon the maximum price of these goods, proposed to recover duty on the 208/210 ltrs. drums and cleared in bulk in containers by applying the price at which the supplier of the raw material sold them. The Deputy Commissioner did not accept the submissions of the parties that applying the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints v. U.O.I. - 1988 (38) E.L.T. 535 it is the price ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll these elements form part of the normal price incurred before the manufacturing process is complete." He, therefore, dismissed the appeals. Hence these appeals. 4. Common Counsel for the appellants does not challenge before us the conclusion relating to 50 ltrs. packing, conceding that the said goods would have to be classified under Section 4A of the Act. His contention with regard to the other goods is that the notice issued to the appellants proceeded only on the basis that IML was the manufacturer of the goods and not NPL. Therefore, having accepted that the facts are covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in Pawan Biscuits v. C.C.E. - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 24 (S.C.) the Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly gone outside the scope of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther of the appellants, while challenging the Deputy Commissioner's order, would have voluntarily started that various elements were not included in the manufacturing cost of NPL. There would be no occasion to raise the question of costs of these goods at all. The Commissioner (Appeals) does not record that there was any such concession by the appellants. He also does not indicate from where he got these information. His observations in this regard must be considered to be entirely unsubstantiated. They also have to be dismissed as they make out a case against the appellants, which was not found in the notice issued to them. It will then follow that his conclusion that the ratio of the Ujagar Prints will apply, will have to be accepted. 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
