9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Aruna Gupta, Adv., Mr. Jitin Singhal, Adv., Mr. Pratik, Adv. And Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. V. Sridharan, Sr. Adv., Mr. M. P. Devanath,Adv., Ms. L. Charanaya, Adv., Mr. Hemant Bajaj, Adv., Mr. T.D. Satish, Adv., Mr. Anandh K., Adv. And Mr. Aditya Bhattacharya, Adv. ORDER The issue involved in the present appeal relates to the alleged under valuation of Linear Alkyl B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herein for different periods alleging therein that the costing as done by the respondent - assessee was not in accordance with the method of costing and it resulted in under valuation and thus lesser payment of duty. The differential duty was, thus, demanded. The respondent herein, on going through the formula of costing as suggested by the Department, objected to the inclusion of the items of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 37700.00 37700.00 45000.00 (upto December) (1999) 46500 (From January 2000) The demand was confirmed after considering the reply that was filed by the respondent. The order of the adjudicating authority was challenged by the respondent before the CESTAT. The CESTAT vide its impugned judgment dated 16.06.2005 partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, such a demand should have gone into the issue de novo. We are unable to agree with the aforesaid submissions of Mr. Radhakrishnan. The impugned order of the Tribunal shall reflect that the Tribunal has kept in mind the Costing Accounting Standard - 4 (CAS-4) as adopted by the Department itself. On that basis, it has come to the conclusion that the three aforesaid elements of cost which were s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
