2007 (2) TMI 376

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T) (for the Bench)]. Duty demands and penalties are in regard to processed yarn cleared by M/s. S. Kumars Ltd. during the period 1999-2000. The appellant was discharging duty liability based on approved price list wherein assessable value was worked out by cost of production method. 2. Under the impugned order, it has been held that assessable value worked out .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at interest cost remains included in the assessable value. It is being pointed out that interest cost is not required to be included in determining the cost of production in terms of Para 1.5 of CAS 4. There is also an objection addition made towards over heads (duty demand of about Rs. 115 crores) is not justified. 4. The contention in regard to limitation is that assessments were originally ma .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to evade payment of duty. The duty demand beyond the normal period is Rs. 3.8 crores. 5. The learned Joint CDR has taken us through the impugned order and has contended that since the assessee was not filing actual data about cost of production, authorities were justified in working out the cost in the manner done under the Adjudication order. 6. There is merit in the appellant s contentions. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X