9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stake while replying to the earlier show-cause notice and while defending the earlier show-cause notice and if the mistake is genuine, they should not be made to suffer and be liable for paying duty for mistake throughout their existence. Therefore, we remand the matter with a request to the Commissioner to consider the matter afresh and give an opportunity to the appellant to present their case and also requiring the appellants to produce whatever information is required for coming to a proper conclusion - matter remanded back. - E/26499/2013-DB - Final Order No. 20275/2014 - Dated:- 25-2-2014 - SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY AND SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JJ. For the Appellant : B.N. Gururaj, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. S. Teli, Dy. Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CENVAT credit has not been taken into account also. In the case of captive consumption, according to the Circular issued by the Board for arriving at the cost of production as required under Rule 8 of Valuation Rules, as suggested by the ICWAI, Board has prescribed CAS-4 certificate as the basis. However, the Commissioner has chosen to ignore the CAS-4 certificate which may not be correct. Moreover, he also submits that the Commissioner did not consider the submission and the facts of the case independently but simply followed the previous orders. 3. We have considered the submissions. As regards the submission that Commissioner followed the previous order and did not apply her mind, we are not convinced of this fact after going through ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant did not claim any trade secret and in fact was willing to give the details. He also submits that the cost of production was worked out earlier on the basis of data given by the appellant only. In fact from the additional submissions made by the appellant before the Commissioner during personal hearing, we find that in paragraph 3, the appellants have submitted a table which shows that the data provided by them in the reply to the show-cause notice and corresponding figures revised by them and given at the time of hearing in the form of a table. However, it is seen that the headings under which details have been given in respect of both the data is the same. The only problem is the figures of cost of direct labour and expenses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
