TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in [2006 (8) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. Held that:- The impugned order confirming duty demand on the basis that costing of the product would also include the interest cost, even though it is not required to be included as per CAS-4, is not sustainable. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed. - E/1656/2005 - A/815/2012-EX(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 10-7-2012 - Justice Ajit Bharihoke, Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri B.L. Narsimhan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Nagesh Pathak, AR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Rakesh Kumar, Member (T)]. The appellant manufacture castings of iron and steel, which are used for manufacture of motor vehicle parts. The appellant during the period of dispute were clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same is to be determined by applying CAS-4 Standard, that this Circular of the Board has retrospective application. That in this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Nirma Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 2006 (200) E.L.T. 213 and of Hon ble Supreme Court s judgment in the of C.C.E., Pune v. Cadbury India Limited reported in 2006 (200) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.). 5. Shri Nagesh Pathak, ld. Authorised Representative for the department defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner in the impugned order and pleaded that the Board s Circular dated 13-2-2003 have only prospective validity and cannot be applied for the period prior to 13-2-2003 and that in this regard, he relies upon the Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ptively consumed by the respondent. The assessee has contended that there is no dispute that these intermediate goods are not marketable and are not bought and sold in the market. Hence the valuation of these intermediate goods has to be done according to Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975. Rule 6(b)(ii) reads as follows : Rule 6 - If the value of the excisable goods under assessment cannot be determined under Rule 4 or Rule 5, and - (a) . (b)(i) . if the value cannot be determined under (ii) sub-clause (i), on the cost of production or manufacture including profits, if any, which the assessee would have normally earned on the sale of such goods; 10. According to settled principles of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld be considered to be a part of the actual cost of the assets to the assessee. As the expression actual cost had not been defined, this Court was of the view that it should be construed in the sense which no commercial man would misunderstand. For this purpose, it could be necessary to ascertain the connotation of the above expression in accordance with the normal rules of accountancy prevailing in commerce and industry . Having considered authoritative books in this regard, this Court said that the accepted accountancy rule for determining the cost of fixed assets was to include all expenditure necessary to bring such assets into existence and to put them in a working condition. That rule of accountancy had to be adopted for determi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
