9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The respondent is a composite mill, manufacturing cotton yarn falling under chapter heading 52.05 and 52.06, cotton fabrics and made-up articles falling under chapters 52,54,55,62 and 63 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The cotton yarn produced by them is captively consumed and for payment of duty on the yarn captively consumed, the respondents were following the procedures laid down under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al duty demand was confirmed and penalty was imposed. Aggrieved, appellants filed appeals and as the matter was pending before Tribunal, the cases were kept in the call book. Later, the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 1108/2005 dated 8.8.2005 held that the order-in-original demanding differential duty and imposing penalty has no merits. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the case of Mafat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dopted in terms of Rule 6(b) of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 for the period upto 01.07.2000 and under Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 as per CAS-4 principles after 01.07.2000 taking ginto account all costs incurred upto spindle stage. That in respect of certain counts, respondents have adopted less value compared to the certified cost and there is short payment of Rs. 4,66,8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... records of the case carefully. We find that the appellants have submitted all the monthly returns during the relevant period. The monthly returns have been scrutinized by the departmental authorities. In these circumstances, if they had omitted to include any element of cost, the department should have issued show-cause notice well in time. We do not find any justification for invocation of the lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
