9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 969X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso seen from the adjudication order that the applicant had not furnished the documents as assured by them. We also notice that Deputy Director (Cost) opined that Cost/Unit shown against Sl.No.20 with particulars "cost of production of goods disposed” should be taken for determination of cost of production for levy of duty in terms of Rule 8 of the “Valuation Rules”. We find that the duty was dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The original authority confirmed the entire amount of duty along with interest and penalty. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. 2. The learned advocate submits that the applicant paid the duty on the basis of CAS-4 and the show-cause notice dated 29.01.2011 is barred by limitation. He submits that the applicant has not opted for provisional assessment and, therefore, the exte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of tax. He also submits that the original authority passed the order on the basis of the opinion of the DD (Cost), which has given a detailed finding of the error in CAS-4. 4. In his rejoinder, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that there were no provisional assessment in any period and as such, the question of the withdrawing the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue. In view of that, the applicant failed to make out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of the entire amount of tax. The limitation aspect would be looked into after going into the facts in details at the time of appeal hearing. We direct the applicant to make a pre-deposit of Rs.10 lakhs within eight weeks. Upon deposit of the said amount, pre-deposit of the balance amount of tax al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
