2008 (11) TMI 452

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t. [Order per : B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)]. The appellant has cleared excisable goods to their sister concern namely M/s. Visen Organic Ltd. paying duty as per value adopted for sales to buyers. The contention of the Revenue is that this was incorrect and appellants should have submitted cost certificate as required in CAS-4 format from cost accountant, since they did not produce the sam .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f comparable goods and such value was more than the cost of production and plus profit. He also submitted that no penalty on the Director could have been levied since no goods were held liable for confiscation. Ld. DR reiterates the grounds taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) while rejecting the appeal. 3. We find that demand is squarely time-barred in view of the decisions of the Tribunal in th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t. Nevertheless, the submission of the appellant that the comparable price adopted was higher than the price worked out by them is sufficient to show that the Revenue has no case on limitation. In this case the demand relates to period from 2002 to 2004 whereas the show cause notice was issued in 2006. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. (Pronounced .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X