2000 (3) TMI 289

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Advocate, for the Respondents. [Order per : Justice K. Sreedharan, President]. - This is an appeal by the Revenue, as directed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs in its Order No. l98-R/96, dated 4-10-1996. By this order, Order-in-Original No. 61/Commr./95, dated 17-10-1995 has been directed to be challenged in appeal before this Tribunal. For knowing whether....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Department's knowledge regarding the cost of packing materials and why the value of the packing material should not be added to the value of the adhesives manufactured for the purpose of assessment to duty under the Excise Law. The period covered by that show cause notice was from 1-1-1989 to 30-9-1992. Respondents herein, the manufacturer of adhesives, disputed the claim put forth in the show ca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nding, another show cause notice, dated 2-12-1993 was issued by the Collector for the period 1-1-1989 to 3-1-1991. That show cause notice was adjudicated by order, dated 3-5-1994. In that adjudication order, it was held that the extended period of limitation is not invocable since nothing was suppressed from the Department. In view of this, the proceedings were dropped. Revenue did not take up the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....substantially covered by the earlier notices also. So, by virtue of principles of res judicata and limitation, the Commissioner dropped the proceedings. This decision of the Commissioner is now sought to be challenged in this appeal. 4. The relationship between the respondents, manufacturer of adhesives, and the purchaser of the goods, namely, M/s. Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. is covered by ....