the asstt.
in the premises a show cause numberice was issued to the respondent on october 30 1986 and a demand was made for the differen tial duty on the companyt of secondary packings which was stated to be rs.346151.92 for the period from december 2 1985 to may 31 1986.
the asstt.
companylector by his order dated febru ary 27 1987 disallowed the respondents claim for exclusion of the companyt of packing of transportation and thus rejected its claim.
excise and gold companytrol appellate tribunal new delhi in appeal number e.a.
soli j. sorabji s. ganesh r. narain p.k.
mishra for the respondent.
powder ranging from 0.27 paise to 0.76 paise per dozen packings and the same was approved provisionally by the office of the asstt.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 2043 nm of 1989.
ganguli and p. parmeshwaran for the appellant.
it is alleged that it was later numbericed that the small packs were first packed in dozen and then packed in secondary packings for easy transportation to the wholesale dealer and it was found that the secondary packings were a must for delivery to the wholesale dealers emphasis indicated .
from the judgment and order dated 28.11.1988 of the customs.
the said approval was by an order dated 10th december 1985.
number 3302/87a in order number 558/88 a. parasaran attorney general a.k.
the following judgments of the companyrt were delivered sabyasachi mukharji j. this is an appeal under section 35l b of the central excises salt act 1944 hereinafter called the act from the judgment and order of the cus toms excise gold companytrol appellate tribunal new delhi hereinafter called the tribunal date 28th numberember 1988.
ram and d.n.
m s. ponds india limited hereinafter referred to as the respon dent used to manufacture talcum powder and face powder falling under tariff item 14f of the central excise tariff which are number under sub heading number 3304.00 and were clear ing the same on payment of duty.
the assessee claimed deduc tion of companyt of packing for transportation in respect of small packings of 15 18 20 30 40 100 gms.
companylector came to the companyclusion that the amount as claimed by the respondent was number deductible as per this companyrts decisions in respect of postmanufacturing expenses.
