9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On perusal of production and costing as given in the table in proceeding pass, it is evident that in some months production was very high and in some months, production recorded was too less. Considering overall circumstances, prima facie case is made by the Revenue - Conditional stay granted. - Excise Appeal No.57476/2013 - - - Dated:- 21-11-2013 - Archana Wadhwa And Manmohan Singh, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Parveen Sharma, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri U K Srivastava, DR PER : Manmohan Singh Appellant in appeal against Order-in-Original No. JNK/CEX/017/13 dated 13-2-2013 Commissioner has confirmed the demand of Rs.1,43,33,544/- under Section 11A of the Act alongwith interest. A penalty of Rs.30 lakh has above been c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the Valuation Rules"). However, the Noticee did not follow the appropriate Rule of determination of value and had undervalued their clearances and thus evaded Central Excise duty. 3. The Noticee had proceed the Cost Accountant's certificate dated 07.04.2009 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Certificate") showing cost of production of Tin Alloys manufactured by them for the year 2008-09 (upto February, 2009). In the said certificate, the cost of production Per M.T. of Tin Alloy has been arrived at Rs. 821.96 per kg. Therefore, the cost of production of the impugned goods comes to Rs.46,63,74,801/-. Accordingly in terms of Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st rule regarding period for which the cost of production needs to be calculated and if there are significant changes in the cost data, then costing can be done even for shorter period. The order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) is based on the logic as reproduced above and therefore the proposition detailed out in Para 7.2 is required to be followed subject to the condition that costing certificates itself are not under doubt. 11.7 I observe that the Noticee had initially submitted a cost certificate dated 07.04.2009 wherein cost of production of the goods was worked out as Rs.804508/- PMT for the period from 04/208 to 02/2009". 6. Monthwise cost of production submitted by appellant is given table below: S.No Mont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f production for all the months in table comes to Rs.923676/-. 8. On the other hand, it was claimed by the appellants that Tin prices have been fluctuating between 20000 US dollar as on 01.04.2008 and in October 2008, prices were in the range of 12000 to 15000 PMT. However on perusal of prices during the relevant period, it was observed that costs shown were comparable for all months through there have been wide fluctuations in the prices. 9. Counsel of appellant during submissions had referred to variations in the LME prices from USD 20000/- PMT in April 2008 and USD/20000 in Oct. 2008. He also justified use of average method as arithmetic mean. On the other hand, he challenged the method of calculation on the basis of CAS-4. 10. Lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
