Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (5) TMI 246

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... id on the basis of average cost of raw material as intimated by P&G in their cost audit report and therefore, the appellant acted bona fide in relying upon the said report and recalculating the differential duty based thereupon. - cost audit report was supplied by the P&G. However, based thereupon, it is the appellant which had worked out the final costing and it is the chartered accountant of the appellant which had prepared the said costing and submitted to the Department. Therefore, the appellant cannot feign ignorance or be pretentious about its innocence in allegedly acting upon the cost audit report as supplied by P&G. - Decided against assessee. - Civil Appeal No. 7357 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 22-4-2015 - A. K. Sikri And Rohinton Fal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... llant was adopting the revised prices as calculated from cost sheet and discharging its duty liability accordingly. The Department undertook the scrutiny of cost sheet and noticed that the appellant was not taking into consideration the other works overhead element in arriving at the assessable value though according to the Department, it formed part of the costing element of 'conversion cost' shown in the costing report. This resulted in issuance of show cause notice dated 30.07.2001 demanding an amount of ₹ 45,50,625/- as differential duty for period July, 1996, to September, 2000. Penalty of equivalent amount was also proposed therein. The appellant filed detailed reply to the same. The Commissioner adjudicated the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... port. The argument by the learned counsel for the appellant, however, was that there was no intentional omission/ suppression on its part inasmuch as the differential duty was paid on the basis of average cost of raw material as intimated by P G in their cost audit report and therefore, the appellant acted bona fide in relying upon the said report and recalculating the differential duty based thereupon. This plea may appear to be convincing in the first brush. However, when we see the facts in entirety, it loses its sheen. No doubt, the cost audit report was supplied by the P G. However, based thereupon, it is the appellant which had worked out the final costing and it is the chartered accountant of the appellant which had prepared th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates