9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting 110% of the cost of the product - the applicant has adopted the CAS-4 method - the value was determined by the CERA Audit whereby, the assessable value for the respective years had been revised. The difference in the assessable value was around 57.39 Lakhs and 36.71 Lakhs respectively in comparison to the value arrived at by the applicant, whereas for the years 2006-2007, 2008-2009 and 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal papers which were kept ready. I consider the reason given for delay is satisfactory and accordingly, condone the delay. 2. Appellant has two units one in Arakere MICO Layout and another one in BTM Layout. Some of the inputs were received in BTM Layout and subsequently, were moved to Arakere unit and thereafter, the final products were cleared from Arakere unit according to the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Arakere unit. He submits that inputs have been actually used in the manufacture of final products in Arakere unit. However, he also fairly agrees that appellants have no evidence whatsoever to show that the inputs received in BTM unit have been transferred to Arakere unit. He also further submits that credit of about Rs.7.8 lakhs related to ABS plastic which are used only in telecommunication ant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssions made by both sides. I find that as submitted by the learned AR in this case the provision of Rule 9(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules also cannot be invoked since it is not a mere mention of wrong address in the invoice but actual non-receipt in the unit which has availed the credit. Unfortunately, the appellants have not moved the inputs from BTM unit to Arakere unit under proper documentation to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
