9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 979X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , CHENNAI], where it is held that valuation of lagging sheets needs to be done as per Rule 8 of Valuation Rules. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. - E/719/2008, E/28/2009, E/29/2009, E/68/2009 - A/31158-31161/2018 - Dated:- 12-9-2018 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. P.V. Subba Rao, Member (Technical) For the Assessee : Shri M.N. Bharath, Advocate For the Revenue : Smt B.V. Siva Naga Kumari, Commissioner/AR ORDER PER: M.V. RAVINDRAN 1. All the appeals are pertaining to same appellant and hence are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The brief facts that arise for consideration in the appeals of the appellant/assessee are that assessees are engaged in manufacture of lagging s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue are in appeal against such orders. 3. Learned Counsel submits that the issue is now settled in their own case by the Tribunal in the Final Order No.483-488/2005 dated 22.03.2005. He took us through the said order exhaustively and submits that issue is no more res integra and further that this order dated 22.03.2005 was carrying appeal by the revenue to the Apex Court and the said appeals were dismissed by the Apex Court by order dated 29.07.2015 as reported at [2015 (322) ELT 418]. He produces the copies of the said orders. 4. Learned Commissioner, on the other hand, submits that the assessable value of the lagging sheets cleared by them to their branches/depots is on the basis of stock transfer basis and appellants have fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was carried in appeal before the CESTAT in Appeal Nos.E/88-92/2004 and E/1360/2004. In those appeals, appellant/assessee had discharged duty liability as per the valuation rules but revenue authorities contested the same and one of the points which was raised by the appellant/assessee was valuation should be done according to the CAS-4 for the earlier period also. The said matters were decided by the Tribunal in Final Order dated 22.03.2005. 8. As stated herein above, the issue arising in these appeals by the revenue as well as by the assessee are continuation of the proceedings which got culminated in the hands of the Tribunal by the order dated 22.03.2005. We find that before the Tribunal, various issues were contested by both side ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oducts India Ltd Vs CCE reported in 2004-TIOL-1090-CESTAT-Bang. As against the contention of the Appellant, the Revenue s objection is that valuation is required to be determined based on the instructions applicable to the particular period and CAS-4 being a standard developed subsequently, it is not applicable. We find no merit in the objection raised by the Revenue. Admittedly, CAS-4 is a standard which has been developed in consultation with the professional body on the subject. Being a standard, it has application in all pending matters. The Circular is also very clear that henceforth all valuation are to be done in terms of CAS-4 . Therefore, the appellants are right in contending that the value for lagging sheets is required to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal, though it was produced before him. We note that this order of the Tribunal was carried in appeals before the Apex Court by the revenue and the Apex Court by their order dated 29.07.2015, has upheld the orders and we reproduce the entire order of their Lordships. 1. Though in these appeals, various issues are raised, we feel that the only issue which needs consideration relates to cutting of the conveyor belting into required sizes and the issue is as to whether it involves manufacture or not. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as CESTAT ) in its impugned order has dealt with this issue in the following manner: - Another point raised in the Revenue's appeal is that the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
