9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 861X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the material cost undergoes fluctuation frequently and the actual overheads could be determined only at the end of the financial year. The appellants determined the final assessable value for the period in dispute on their own and paid the differential duty of Rs. 95,94,137/- on 30.04.2010, which was reported to the adjudicating authority. Thereafter, the adjudicating authority passed the final assessment order vide his order dated 07.09.2010, appropriating the differential duty paid by the appellants and also demanded appropriate interest under Rule 7 (4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the differential duty. Accordingly the appellants also paid an amount of Rs. 20,53,468/- on 04.11.2010 towards the interest demanded and simultaneousl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Commissioner (Appeals-II) and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) after hearing both the parties has allowed the appeal of the department. In his order, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of BHEL Vs. CCE, Kanpur- 2015 (323) ELT 417 (All.), he has also referred to the Notification No. 8/2015- CE(NT) dated 01.03.2015 and also referred to Cine Super 8 Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI - 1994 (72) ELT 20 (Bom.) and Sulochana Amma Vs. Narayanan Nair - 1995 (77) ELKT 785 (S.C.). Aggrieved by the said order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), the tax payer is before this forum. 2. On behalf of the appellants, Shri R. Sai Prashanth appeared and submitted that it was the case of the ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal admittedly placing reliance on mainly the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad as against which the decisions of the Bombay High Court supports the contention of the tax payer. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. Undoubtedly, the issue involved is no more res integra since this Tribunal has already taken a decision in its orders in the appellant's own cases for different periods as stated by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the tax payer. This Tribunal in all its earlier orders has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Ispat Industries Ltd. (supra). While passing the orders, this Court has duly taken note of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahaba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
