GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
What's New Case Laws Highlights Articles News Forum Short Notes Statutory TMI SMS More ...
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (12) TMI 784 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2016 (12) TMI 784 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - Valuation - disproportionate use of raw material - compound P - computation of assessable value - acceptance of CAS-4 certification for determination of assessable value in question - Held that: - An adjudicating authority, in de novo proceedings, cannot deviate from the directions issued by the appellate authority. Doing so would have imperilled the fresh order. Had Revenue any misgivings about the directions given then by the Tribunal, that grievance s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

remand directions of the Tribunal that are now sought to be articulated. Contrary to all canons of judicial propriety, this appeal seeks to review our own earlier order. This we must decline to do - The grounds of appeal have not raised any point of substance on the findings of the adjudicating authority in denovo proceedings. Consequently, we find nothing upon which we are required to exercise our judgment - appeal of Revenue dismissed. - Appeal No.E/606/07-MUM - Order No.A/93819/16/EB. - Dated .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

8377; 59,025/- under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 against the differential duty of ₹ 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 Hy .....

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 shortfall of 16.97%, 20.26% and 25.34% respectively which is usually higher than the declared process loss. Based on report of Assistant Director (Cost), the assessable value of the compounds were re-worked. Consequent upon adjudication which confirmed duty liability of ₹ 3,05,33,417/-, the assessee carried the matter to the Tribunal which remanded the matter back to original authority vide order no. A-1336 to 1339/WZB/2004/C-III dated 7th July 2004 owing to various lacunae in the proce .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

taking into consideration that valuation as per CAS-4 was never claimed by the assessee except at the first time appearance before the Tribunal and that settled law debars new contentions being brought before appellate authorities for the first time. It is also contended 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on when the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority. These are: "3.1 The denial of cross examination sought of the Chartered Accountant by the noticee and the conclusion drawn by the Commissioner about the credibility of the Chartered Accountant cannot be upheld. The Commissioners conduct in decuting from the Chartered Accountants certificates an adverse inference against the assessee and about the Chartered Accountant without giving an opportunity to the assessee to cross ex .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the plea being made that the Commissioner has traveled beyond the show cause notice and such an order has to be set aside with directions to the adjudicator to restrict and re-determine the issues raised in the notice only. 3.3 Similarly, the findings in para 23.3(c) of the order that the appellants managed to get an acceptance of the price list from the jurisdictional officer is a grave charge and conclusion which was not the subject matter of the proceedings before the Commissioner. It has bee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Latest Notifications:

    Dated      Category

20-7-2017 Cus (NT)

18-7-2017 IT

18-7-2017 CE (NT)

18-7-2017 CE

18-7-2017 GST CESS Rate

15-7-2017 Kerala SGST

14-7-2017 Andhra Pradesh SGST

14-7-2017 Cus (NT)

14-7-2017 Cus

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 ADD

13-7-2017 ADD

12-7-2017 Jammu & Kashmir SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 CGST Rate

12-7-2017 UTGST Rate

12-7-2017 UTGST Rate

12-7-2017 IGST Rate

More Notifications


Latest Circulars:

19-7-2017 Income Tax

18-7-2017 Customs

17-7-2017 Customs

14-7-2017 Income Tax

13-7-2017 Central Excise

13-7-2017 Customs

13-7-2017 Central Excise

13-7-2017 Customs

7-7-2017 Income Tax

7-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

More Circulars



|| 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