2016 (9) TMI 839

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ) for respondent ORDER These two appeals are disposed of by a common order as they are challenging the same impugned order. 2. It is seen that personal hearing notices sent to the appellant were returned to the Tribunal undelivered.  Accordingly, on 07.06.2016 Bench directed the Registry to serve the notice through Commissioner (AR) office.  The notice could not be served and the repo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... further manufacturing of the excisable goods from the factory premises.  The period involved in this case is February 1997 to January 2002.  The period involved is governed by the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 pre and post   01.07.2000.  As regards the period prior to 01.07.2000 provisions of Rule 6 (b)(i) of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 197 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... les, 1975 read with Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. 5. As regards the liability post 01.07.2000, we find that the provisions of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules are very clear inasmuch as the said Rules mandate from an assessee to discharge the duty liability on 110% or 115% of the cost of production of the goods.  Apparently the appellant had produced a certificate from Chartered Accoun .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X