9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 against the differential duty of Rs. 4,45,35,181/- proposed in show cause notice in relation to manufacture of 'compound S', 'compound G' and 'compound P.' 2. The said compounds are mixtures of perfumes, attars and chemicals mixed according to a secret formula and used in production of pan masala and ghutka. The respondent manufactures the inputs at Shirur in Unit I which are used by their sister units at Shirur Unit -II, Baroda and Hyderabad. 3. The case of Revenue is built upon disproportionate use of raw material. The respondent had declared a process of loss of 2% and assessable value was computed on 'cost construction' basis under section 4(1)(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tended that the Tribunal had not taken into account the applicability of the instructions of Central Board of Excise & Customs to the clearance effected by the appellant and, that being so, it was the obligation of the adjudicating authority to do so. It is also submitted that the Commissioner had erred in applying the circular of 13th February 2003 whereas the dispute pertained to earlier years. 5. We have heard Learned Authorized Representative and the Learned Counsel for appellant. It would appear that the main grievance of Revenue is the acceptance of CAS-4 certification for determination of assessable value. It would, in the circumstances, be appropriate to peruse the observation of the Tribunal on the earlier occasion when the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut any basis as was pleaded before us. If that was so and as found, the appellants should have been placed on notice. Nothing was produced before us to show that Assistant Commissioner's approvals have been challenged by the department under S. 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The plea of time bar therefore has to be re-determined and other material which the appellants may opt to place before the Commissioner. 3.4 On merits also the appellants plea to re-determine the value as per CAS 4 now as directed by Board to apply in all case of captive consumption Valuation is to be applied in this case in the de novo proceedings. The instructions are very specific about the issue of overheads etc. and cannot be dispensed. Therefore, overh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
