9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand of differential duty on the following grounds:- (a) Non-inclusion of the actual administration and general expenses incurred by the appellants in the assessable value of the final products cleared by the appellants to M/s. Madura Coats Ltd. (b) Duty payable on interest on the advance given by M/s. Madura Coats Ltd to the appellants. (c) Differential duty payable on the alleged gain of Rs. 60,24,064/- said to have been obtained by the appellants pursuant to sale to M/ s. Madura Coats Ltd. of finished products manufactured out of yarn/thread received free from M/s. Madura Coats Ltd. (d) Duty payable on Modvat availed and utilised by the appellants for allegedly paid back to M/s. Madura Coats Ltd. 3. The appellant is engaged in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of production of the final products. (c) The learned Advocate urged that on the limitation, they have strong case because the appellants had submitted price declaration of the Department furnishing all the necessary details. Balance sheets being public documents, the allegation of suppression cannot be made in respect of figures obtained from the balance sheets. He relied on the following case laws:- (a) CCE, Jamshedpur vs. Dabur (India) Ltd., 2005 (67) RLT 570 SC)=2005 (182) ELT 308 (SC) (1,) Hindalco Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Allahabad, 2003 (161) ELT 346 (Tri.-Del.) (c) Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. vs. CCE, Nasik, 2005 (67) RLT 729 (CESTAT-Mum.)=2004 (178) ELT 998 (Tri Mumbai) For the period from April 1999 to December 1999, sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d wastage, payments like VRS, retrenchment compensation, lay-off wages etc. shall not form the part of cost of production." From the above, it is very clear that as per Cost Accountant Standards, abnormal cost need not to be included. There is a clear instruction of the Board as per its Circular dated 13.2 .2003 [reported in 2003 (54) RLT M95] to adopt CAS-4 in respect of estimating the cost of captively consumed goods. Moreover, the same issue was decided in favour of the appellants and that decision has not been justified. Hence on merits as well as on limitation, the appellants have strong case. The Order-in-Original does not have, any merit. Therefore, the imposition of penalty is not justified. We set aside the impugned order and all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
