H.R.SYIEM, M.SANTHANAM
Timblo and Timblo (P. ) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Goa – Respondent
M. Santhanam, Member (J)
1. As common questions of law and fact are involved in both these appeals, they were taken up together. The appeals have been filed under the following circumstances:
2. The appellants are manufacturers of collapsible tubes falling under Item No. 27(e) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appellants clear the plain tubes on payment of duty and thereafter subject the goods to the process of lacquering and/or printing. The appellants furnished price list showing therein the price of the plain tubes. In the remarks column, they have adverted to the printing, lacquering, etc. The Superintendent of Central Excise informed the appellants to score the remarks and hence they were scored. The appellants submit that they have not suppressed any fact and have intimated the Department the nature of the activities including that of printing and lacquering. The invoices have been checked by the Department and the relevant returns have been filed. While so, a show cause notice was issued on 1-12-1978 alleging that aluminium containers were cleared by mis-describing them as collapsible tubes for further lacquering and printing which were
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.