2017 (12) TMI 1245

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... R Per: Ramesh Nair The fact of the case is that the appellant during the period July 2000 to January 2005 cleared the goods on the assessable value arrived at in terms of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. Due to discrepancy in the CAS-4 there was a short payment of duty. During the audit on pointing out by the audit party, the appellant admittedly paid the entire duty amount. The a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is not a case of clandestine removal. The appellant have been paying duty with a clear understanding that value arrived at cost construction method, therefore there is no suppression of fact. He submits that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) also while deciding the appeal before him, has given clear finding that there is no malafide intention of the appellant. Taking into consideration of this facts .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssioner (Appeals) in the finding clearly mentioned that the appellant had no malafide intention the relevant para-6 is reproduced below: "6. Board's Circular has been issued on 13.2.03 and therefore department's allegation that respondent had not done valuation correctly for the period prior to 13.2.03 is without any basis and therefore untenable. As regards period after 13.2.03 respondents have .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X