2017 (8) TMI 1518

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... R.K. Chowdhury and B.N. Pal, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri S.S. Chattopadhyay, Supdt., for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Justice Satish Chandra, President]. - The present appeal is filed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 42/Kol.I/07, dated 31-8-2007 passed by Commr. of Central Excise (Appeals), Kolkata. The period of dispute is 2001-2004. 2. Brief facts of the case are t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly, the duty demand was raised along with penalty. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal. 5. With these background, we have heard Shri R.K. Chowdhury, Ld. Counsel for the appellant and Shri S.S. Chattopadhyaya, Ld. D.R. for the Department. 6. We have perused the record. It appears that the objection was raised by the Department, which resulted the levy of duty for Rs. 7,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of unit will not make them part of finished goods under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 9. After considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the objection of the Department is towards the trading goods which were bought out by the appellant. The value was includible in the value of manufactured goods. 10. In the instant case, these i....