2017 (10) TMI 1170

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vesh Bhuguma, Advocates for the Assessee(s) Shri. V.K. Tehran & Shri. Harvinder Singh, ARs. for the Revenue(s) ORDER After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri. Rupesh Kumar & Shri. Pravesh Bhuguma, Advocates and Sh. V.K. Tehran & Shri. Harvinder Singh, ARs, We note that the assessee is a manufacturer of chemicals falling under Chapter 28 and 38 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....who vide the impugned order dated 25.11.2008 held that substantial part of the demand was barred by limitation. However, he partly upheld the Order-In-Original. Thus, demand of duty of Rs. 1,28,525/-, was sustained, and penalty of Rs. 15,000/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was imposed. 3.   The short issue which arises in the present appeal is whether the cost of durab....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ble. In terms of the test of marketability laid down by the Supreme Court in the matters of Jauss Polymers Ltd. V. CCE, Meerut, 2003 (157) ELT 626 and Hindustan Polymers V. CCE, 1989 (43) ELT 165 (SC), the packing material not being integral to the manufacture of the goods of the assessee, the value of the same cannot be added to the assessable value. 4.   As the issue stands decided by....