2001 (10) TMI 733

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....has found that it did not pay appropriate duty on some fabrics that it processed, for the reason that the job charges recovered from the customers were higher than the charges that it declared to the department and included in their assessable value. The Commissioner has also found that the appellant ought to have paid duty on another consignment of fabric that is processed under Heading 5801.32 and not under Heading 5406.10 of the Tariff which was applicable to the man-made fabrics. 3. We are not able to accept the first submission of the representative of the appellant with regard to the first allegation of non- inclusion of the correct job charges. This is that, although the bills issued to the person who supplied the gray fabric....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... reads "This could be done on average basis in the light of the consensus arrived at during the discussions between the Central Excise authorities and the processors representative, which is enclosed as "Annexure A". The trade notice indicate 4.2% of the value of the grey fabrics includible in the account. It stands to reason that in determining the assessable value of such goods, the cost of such elements, where the actual figures are available, the question of resorting to such notional or average figure does not arise. If the appellant had furnished with supporting evidence details of charges incurred on various counts, the Commissioner was required to consider them and not to accept them in the absence of good reasons. The representativ....