TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1722X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decided in the case of M/S COROMANDEL PAINTS LTD. VERSUS CCE & CC, VISAKHAPATNAM [2016 (6) TMI 1018 - CESTAT HYDERABAD], where it was held that since the application of paint contains labour costs, the assessable value is to be determined under Rule 11 only after deduction of the value of labour component from the total value for supply and apply. Penalty - Held that:- The period involved in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion in all these appeals is, during the period 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2011 appellant had supplied paint and also has undertaken the painting contract. They cleared the paint by discharging central excise duty by adopting the value under the provisions of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules while it is the case of the department that the value should be worked out following Rule 11 of the Valuation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order was passed by the Tribunal and appellant would have had a bonafide belief in continuing to discharge of central excise duty based upon understanding of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules. Accordingly penalties imposed in all these appeals are set aside and appeals stand disposed of as indicated herein above. (Order pronounced and dictated in open court) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
