TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (12) TMI 287
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : G. Sankaran, Member (T)]. - The dispute in the present four appeals lies in a narrow compass. The issue is whether M/s. Ambika Silk Mills Co. Ltd. (the respondents) were entitled to have separate prices for short length pieces of fabrics cleared by them. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise by his Order dated 2-9-1982 held that the respondents were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in appeal before us. 2. We have heard Shri K.C. Sachar, D.R., for the Appellant Collector and Shri V. Sridharan, Advocate, for the respondents. 3. It is seen from the proceedings before the lower authorities as well as from the submissions before us that the respondent's explanation for the lower prices declared by them in respect of the fabrics whose assessable value is in dispute, is that afte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondents, apart from mere prefixation of certain digits to the regular sort numbers of standard length or sound fabrics, they had not mentioned that the subject fabrics were of a category different from standard length or sound fabrics to justify lower assessable values. This, according to the Collector, amounts to failure to furnish material information (which probably did not exist) to enable th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) explaining their position. The Assistant Collector addressed a further letter dated 2-9-1982 to the respondents containing his decision not to approve the lower assessable values declared by the respondens. It is seen from this letter which is really the Assistant Collector's order that he had seen some of the photocopies of the packing slips indicating separately good cloth and short length clo....