9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 30.9.2001 represents the correct cost of production and we find that the said cost of production is less than the Assessable value on which the respondent had paid duty. - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/933/05-Mum - Final Order No. A/397/2015-WZB/EB - Dated:- 3-2-2015 - P. K. Jain, Member (T) And Ramesh Nair, Member (J),JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Rakesh Goyal, Additional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found that another report of the cost auditor was available for the period ending 30 th September 2001. The amounts indicated in the two certificates under the head (i) Material Cost' and (ii) Other costs/overheads' were different. In the certificate dated 7.8.2000, the material cost, was indicated as ₹ 20,111/- while in cost audit report, the same was indicated as ₹ 13,934/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve paid duty. Yet another contention of the respondent is that certificate dated 7.8.2000 was based upon Estimation as per the situation at that time while certificate of cost auditor is based upon actual for the whole period. 5. We have gone through the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and in our view, it is not appropriate on the part of the Revenue to take the material cost as per certifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
