2019 (8) TMI 1312

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(Tribunal). The impugned order dated 16th May, 2017 dismissed the petitioner's appeal from the order in original dated 18th January, 2006 of the Commissioner of Central Excise under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (Act). 3. At the very outset, we noticed that the impugned order is dated 16th May, 2017 and the petition is filed in this Court only on 6th December, 2018. Thus, we were prima facie of the view that the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay alone. In response, the petitioner states there is no delay as the petitioner was prosecuting its challenge to the impugned order dated 16th May, 2017 ever since its receipt. This by filing an appeal under Section 35G of the Act before the Court. However, it was withdrawn on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the product development cost to the goods manufactured, appellant denies the same. 1.2 Appellants submit that duty has already been paid on these debit notes amounts without any dispute that duty is not payable (page No.31) thereon. Therefore, there is no more necessity to determine the assessability and duty liability on these amounts for inclusion in the assessable value. In view such admitted position and the expenses of product development having been made by appellant which has direct nexus to manufacture, Revenue's contention that duty is leviable on the above amounts is correct and to this extent, we dismiss the appeal against the manufacturer appellant, M/s. ISMT Ltd. on this count." 7. Normally facts of what transpi....