S.S. POLY PRINTERS AND JINDAL Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are directed against the same order of adjudication. Accordingly, they are taken up for consideration together for disposal by this common order.

(2.) The appeals challenged the findings of the Commissioner with regard to the eligibility for exemption under Notifications No. 15/94 -CE dated 1.3.94 and 8/96 -CE dated 23.7.96 as well as the quantification of the value of job work. First, the findings themselves: We reproduce paras 4.3 and 4.4 of impugned order which contain the findings:

(3.) Ld. Counsel representing the appellants submits that the above findings are not sustainable at all. It is his contention that the issue relating to the applicability of the notifications being fundamental to determine the rate and amount of duty, the same could be raised at any time and the Commissioner was not justified in holding that that issue could not be raised at the stage before her. With regard to computation of value, the contention of the Ld. Counsel is that the adjudicating authority could not have gone by the Balance Sheet alone for determining the value of the goods manufactured by the appellants inasmuch as, for the purpose of central excise, separate statutory records have been prescribed and the assessee was keeping day -to -day record of production. It is being submitted that the Commissioner could not have relied upon the Balance Sheet figures in preference to those documents, particularly, in view of the fact that all those records have been seized by the central excise authorities and they are still available with them.