Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (10) TMI 889 - CESTAT KOLKATA

2015 (10) TMI 889 - CESTAT KOLKATA - TMI - Waiver of pre deposit - Determination of assessable value - Revenue contends that assessable value of gear box ought to be determined under Sec. 4(1)(b) of CEA,1944 read with Rule 10 (a) and with Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 - Held that:- Appellant has placed the opinion of M/s. Mani & Co., the Cost Accountant, in their support. It is also contended that on reference of the said opinion to A.D. (Cost), by the Department, more or le .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the appeal. At this stage, in our view, the applicant could able to make out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of dues adjudged. Accordingly, all dues adjudged is waived and its recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeal. - Stay granted. - Stay Application No. 157/2011 In Excise Appeal No. E-101/2011 - Order No : SO/75918/15 - Dated:- 9-9-2015 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Judicial Member and Shri H.K. Thakur, Technical Member For the Petitioner : Sri Ravi Raghavan & Miss S. Chatte .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

between the applicant and M/s. Tata Motors Ltd as per Sec.4(1)(a) of CEA,1944. 4. On the basis of audit objection, the department alleged that the clearances to M/s. Tata Motors by the applicant are not on principal to principal basis and hence the assessable value of gear box ought to be determined under Sec. 4(1)(b) of CEA,1944 read with Rule 10 (a) and with Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. Accordingly, the cost of the gear box had been arrived at by the Department and diff .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

llant as correct. The said certificate was later also accepted by the Assistant Director (Cost) as correct when referred by the department for his opinoion. It is the grievance of the appellant that even though the methodology adopted was in accordance with CAS-4 and accepted by the A.D. (Cost) as correct, the same was not considered by the adjudicating authority and the demand was confirmed. 5. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Ld. Adjudicating authority. He submits that t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version