TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st of production. After going through the reasons given by the Tribunal in support of the conclusions, we find no error therein. - Decided against Revenue. - Civil Appeal No(s). 3621/2007 with C.A. Nos. 5109-5110 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 9-10-2015 - Mr. A.K. Sikri And Mr. Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ For the Petitioner : Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv., Mrs. Aruna Gupta, Adv., Mr. Jitin Singhal, Adv., Mr. Pratik, Adv. And Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. V. Sridharan, Sr. Adv., Mr. M. P. Devanath,Adv., Ms. L. Charanaya, Adv., Mr. Hemant Bajaj, Adv., Mr. T.D. Satish, Adv., Mr. Anandh K., Adv. And Mr. Aditya Bhattacharya, Adv. ORDER The issue involved in the present appeal relates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 51799.00 51799.00 Less: Profit Margin (2) 8554.00 7883.00 7883.00 Less: Interest (3) 6943.00 9570.00 9570.00 (4)=(1)-(2)-(3) 36258.00 34346.00 34346.00 (-) Depreciation costs not includible 402.67 546.08 546.08 (-) Catalyst cost not Includible (6) 333.18 365.34 365.34 (-) Catalyst cost not includible 190.50 1190.50 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of first show-cause notice which applies to these notices as well, there is a demand on the limited aspect for calculation of the cost. Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for the Department made various submissions questioning the correctness of the view taken by the Tribunal. He further argued that once there was a demand in respect of four show-cause notices, such a demand should have gone into the issue de novo. We are unable to agree with the aforesaid submissions of Mr. Radhakrishnan. The impugned order of the Tribunal shall reflect that the Tribunal has kept in mind the Costing Accounting Standard 4 (CAS-4) as adopted by the Department itself. On that basis, it has come to the conclusion that the three af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
