9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t a subject matter before the original authority. Neither it was a subject matter before the first appellate authority. The issue before the lower authorities for a decision was whether the appellant-assessee correctly arrived at the 115% based on costing in terms of Board's circular dt.1.7.2002 - As such, it is not legally tenable for the Revenue to take up an issue which was not all proposed, discussed or decided by both the lower authorities. Since no proposal was made against the appellant-assessee to change the method of valuation in the proceedings before the lower authorities, we cannot go into the said issue for a decision - appeal dismissed. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No.E/280/2006, Appeal Nos.E/497/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of production. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dt. 28.10.2005 held that appellant-assessee are eligible for full refund. He allowed the appeal of the appellant-assessee with consequential relief. He upheld the claim of the appellant-assessee regarding method of costing adopted by them. The Revenue preferred appeal against this order which was earlier rejected by the Tribunal due to delay. On appeal by the Revenue, the Hon'ble Madras High Court condoned the delay and restored the appeal for a decision by the Tribunal. 3. We have examined the grounds of appeal by the Revenue. There are two points mentioned in the appeal. The first one is regarding reliance placed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the decision of T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t point raised by the Revenue is no more sustainable. The decision of the Tribunal in National Aluminium Co. Ltd. (supra) has been affirmed by the Apex Court. The implication is that valuation based on costing can be made for clearances prior to 2003 when the cases were pending. 9. On the second issue, we note that valuation under Rule 4 / Rule 11 was not a subject matter before the original authority. Neither it was a subject matter before the first appellate authority. The issue before the lower authorities for a decision was whether the appellant-assessee correctly arrived at the 115% based on costing in terms of Board's circular dt.1.7.2002. As such, we find it is not legally tenable for the Revenue to take up an issue which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
