Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai-III Versus Vidyut Metallics Pvt. Ltd.

2015 (11) TMI 1581 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Valuation - intermediate products manufactured and consumed further by the respondent-assessee - short-discharge of duty due to improper application of Rules and not arrived at the correct assessable value based upon CAS-4 for the period April - May, 2002 - Demand - Held that:- it is found that on the very same issue, this bench has remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority. Therefore, by applying the same finding, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the ad .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

identical issue has directed not to impose penalties the very same order will be applicable in this case also. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority, after arriving at the short-duty paid by the assessee, if any, will confirm the same along with interest as per the directions of the Tribunalís order. - Appeal disposed of - E/1720/2005 - A/85089-85090/16/EB - Dated:- 27-11-2015 - Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) and Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri N. N. Prabhudesai, Superintenden .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a common order. 2. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of the records, it seems that the issue involved in this case is regarding valuation of the intermediate products manufactured and consumed further by the respondent-assessee. Revenue authorities were of the view that there is a short-discharge of duty due to improper application of the Rules and not arrived at the correct assessable value based upon CAS-4 for the period April - May, 2002. The adjudicating authority h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

bmit that for the period post 01/07/2000 the value has to be computed as per the CAS-4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee submits that they have got all the CAS-4 documents with them which they can produce before the authorities and draws our attention to the findings recorded by the bench and submits that the matter has been remanded back to the adjudicating authority. He draws our attention to the findings of paragraph No. 46. 5. Learned departmental representative has .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oner is correct and we uphold the same. As far as computation of value after 01/07/2000 is concerned the same can be computed as per CAS-4. We also note that respondent-assessee has not produced any such costing details/CAS-4 certificate during adjudication or before this Tribunal. In fact, from May, 2001 onwards, respondent-assessee has accepted 1996 circular, paid differential duty and took credit of same in other plant. However, it is not clear whether entire differential duty was paid or onl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version