9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 759X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e us, one by the assessee and the other by the Revenue. In the assessee s appeal, the challenge is against demand of duty of Rs. 28,85,981/- for the period 15-11-1999 to 31-12-2001, while, in the Revenue s appeal, the challenge is against the dropping of major part of demand of duty in favour of the assessee for the period September, 1997 to February, 1998. 2. In adjudication of a show-cause not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad failed to prove suppression of facts by the assessee. In other words, demand of duty for the said period was vacated on the ground of limitation. There is no appeal by the Revenue against this part of the Commissioner s order. As regards the subsequent period 15-11-1999 to 31-12-2001, the ld. Commissioner observed that the assessments were provisional in nature and hence any demand for this per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were assessing the goods in question to duty of excise on a certain basis not governed, at the time of assessment, by CAS-4 formula obviously because this formula for valuation of captively consumed goods was brought into force on 13-2-2003 only by the relevant circular of the Board. But when this formula was implemented, the CBEC in the said circular made it clear that all pending assessments of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the ld. Commissioner proceeded on the basis that the assessments for the period from 15-11-1999 to 31-12-2001 were provisional in nature and hence the goods cleared by the assessee to their sister concern during this period were to be re-assessed as per the provisions of law. He recorded yet another finding to the effect that, on account of the provisional nature of the assessment, the duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
