1997 (6) TMI 77

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Ramesh, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice U.L. Bhat, President]. -  This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 31-8-1988 passed by the Collector (Appeals) allowing the application (Appeal) filed by the Assistant Collector on the direction of the Collector (Appeals) against the order passed by the Assistant Collector dropping the proceedings initiated by two ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... behalf of the consumers do not belong to respondent, and respondent did not properly account for these goods and did not observed Central Excise formalities for clearing the same, and did not paid duty on the same. Show cause notices referred to non-payment of duty on tools, moulds and dies on which duty was payable. Notices proposed demand of duty on such goods and imposition of penalty. 3.&e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....would not arise. 4. The Assistant Collector passed a common order in the two show cause notices dropping the proceedings but without assigning any reason. The order was challenged by the Department before the Collector (Appeals) who without granting respondent an opportunity of hearing allowed the appeal holding that since the respondent charged the cost of dies and moulds from the buyers,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Department was correct. He also directed that the cost of dies and moulds cannot be included in the value of component parts manufactured by the respondent. This part of the order is challenged by the Department. 6. According to Shri H.K. Jain, SDR, the component parts being dutiable, the value of dies and moulds should be reflected in the assessable value of the component parts since they....