9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 949X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioned with supporting evidence; Revenue did not initiate any action independently to ascertain by another Cost Accountant whether the CAS-4 submitted by respondents is correct or not - As the Revenue failed to substantiate the allegations on CAS-4 submitted the respondents by concrete evidence, the appeal is bound to fall - Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3/2007 dated 03.08.2007 demanding duty of ₹ 64,56,399/- by fixing the cost of production a 20% higher than that of the previous year's production and Assessable Value as 110% of Production. The Respondents contended that demand on the basis of fixing Cost of Production notionally at 20% higher than previous years cost was arbitrary; the CAS-4 certificate for the previous Year 2005-06 was ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondents 'direct wages and salaries' were divided by the normal capacity of the plant. (ii) The opening and closing stock of work in progress (Sl. No. 9 & 10 of the CAS-4) shall be adjusted against the total cost (Sl. No. 8 of the CAS-4) and the relevant figure shall be net total cost as shown in Sl. No. 11 CAS-4. Only at that point, the cost per unit calculated and for Sl. No. 9&10 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctness of the CAS-4 submitted by the respondents was not questioned by Revenue with evidence. It is not the case of Revenue that they have got the facts verified and calculated and certified by another Chartered Engineer. Therefore, in view of the CBEC Circular cited above, CAS-4 submitted by the respondents should be accepted. They placed reliance on the ratio of judgement of Tribunal in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
