1981 (10) TMI 180

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sions in the revision application and the submissions made at the time of personal hearing as well as the written submissions sent after the hearing. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners are manufacturers of excisable goods falling under Tariff Items 11 - B and 68 Central Excise Tariff. The goods were cleared from their factory in barrels after paying appropriate duty on the bas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....differential duty. The three appeals filed against the three Orders-In-Original were rejected by the Appellate Collector by a common order in appeal. The Appellate Collector referred to the petitioners' contention that repacking was not a process of manufacture and held that the issue before him was different viz., what should be the correct assessable value of the goods and not whether repacking ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... no case for payment of any differential duty as held by the Asstt. Collector. They have also produced photo copies of two invoices showing that the goods in bulk had been sold even at the factory gate at the prices declared in the price-lists. They have lastly contended that if these submissions were not acceptable to the Government, then they should at least get the benefit of the revision of th....