Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Maharashtra Agro Indus. Devp.

1. in the order impugned in the appeal, the collector (appeals) has held that the plastic strapping used in the packing cartons of processed and preserved food manufactured by it are inputs. hence this appeal by the department.2. the departmental representative reiterates the grounds in the appeal, which is that the assessee has not included the cost of the strapping in the assessable value of the products which required by proviso (b)(ii) to rule 57a if credit is to be taken. departmental representative contends that the collector (appeals) has concluded that the cost of these goods was included in the value only on the non-substantiated claim of the assessee.3. in his order, the collector records the claim of the appellant that the cost of the strapping forms part of the assessable value of the final product and his order is based on this calim. as against this, there is nothing in the appeal to rebut this contention that the cost is not included. it would have been an easy matter for the department to establish the price list or otherwise, that the cost was not included. it has chosen not to do so. all that remains is an unsubstantiated claim. i see no reason to accept such claim, for merely record it has been made. it was up to the department to establish the claim that not having been due. i see no reason to interfere.