9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority for a consideration of the relevant material, now brought up before the Tribunal, relating to the valuation of the goods i.e. Sheet glass, cleared by the appellants who are EOU to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA). 2. In the identically worded finding in these three cases, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-I has held that the value declared by the appellant for the sheet glass cleared to DTA is under-declared and has demanded the differential duty in these three cases on the basis of the certificate given by the Chartered Accountant of the cost of production of the appellant and by adding to it notional profit of 10%. The appellant as 100% EOU had been granted permission to make clearance of sheet glass to the DTA by the Devel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited and relied upon the clarification by the Central Board of Excise and Customs based on which the Trade Notice dated 13-9-1994 has been issued by the Calcutta-II Collectorate, reproduced in 1994 (74) E.L.T. (T44) being Board Circular No. 368/35/92-CX. 8, dated 17-8-1994 wherein the Board has directed that in case of DTA sales by EOU the invoice price should be accepted as transaction value and the assessment made accordingly. 3. Shri S.V. Singh, the learned DR submitted that the Commissioner had gone by the document produced by the applicant themselves regarding the cost of production to arrive at the assessable value and it is not in evidence that the Board circular now cited had been noticed by the Commissioner. 4. We have consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uggested reliance upon the best judgement assessment rule . We find that the criteria laid down for assessment of DTA clearance by EOU unit in the goods clarification are very relevant to the impugned order which has not dealt with the issue based on that reference to the clarification given by the Board. Even though there is a reference to case law cited before the Commissioner as well as some Public Notice, we are of the view that the methodology in the Board clarification ought to be considered for application in the present case. And since this exercise has not been undertaken, we hold that it is a fit case for remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for re-determining of the assessable value in this case with reference to, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
