Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful)

TaxTMI AI Drafter workflow from input facts to final legal draft Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2009 (10) TMI 901

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....GEMENT P.K. Das:- 1. The relevant facts of the case as per record, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of "passenger cars" classifiable under Chapter 87 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period Jan.'99 to Oct.'99, the appellant cleared their cars for test, display and demonstration purposes. They resorted to provisional as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t they cleared 180 cars prior to commercial production for testing and demonstration on the basis of provisional assessment, out of which two cars were earmarked as waste and scraps were meant for scrapping. He further submits that the demand of duty on the two cars which were mere waste and scraps cannot be sustained. He also submits that the lower authorities should have finalised the assessment....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the main contention of the appellant is that the value of the testing cars cannot be compared with the normal commercial cars. The adjudicating authority observed that the appellants had not established the difference between the two types of cars. It is also observed that the appellant had not furnished the cost of production o....