9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ves appointed a Cost Accountant as permitted in Central Excise law to ascertain the cost of production and worked out the assessable value as 115% / 110% of such cost, as the case may be, to demand any duty liability. Instead, a very discernible shortcut, not supported by any provision of law, was adopted, namely, adding 15% to their invoice prices. There are merits in the contention of the appellants that this issue in any case is revenue-neutral. Time limitation - Held that:- There is no doubt that the issue was in correspondence right from 2004. The SCN in question was however issued only on 03.05.2007. If appellants were consistently contesting their requirement to arrive at the assessable value of clearances under CAS-4, departme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue at 115% of cost of production for the period upto 04.08.2003 and from 05.08.2003 onwards at 110% of cost of production. CAS-4 certificate was also not produced by the appellant in respect of the request thereof by the department. Accordingly, show cause notice dt. 03.05.2007 was issued to appellants inter alia, alleging that appellants had not adopted correct assessable value for the clearances effected during the period 2002-03 to 2006-07 resulting in differential duty liability of ₹ 40,18,632/-. The SCN therefore proposed recovery of the said amount with interest thereon as also imposition of penalties under various provisions of law. In adjudication, the original authority vide an order dt. 15.10.2008 confirmed the demands as pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o working of differential duty liability by adding 15% thereon. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. 5.1 In the first instance, the appellants have been taking a stand that they are not governed by CAS-4 standards and are not required to produce CAS-4 certificates. On the other hand, we are also unable to fathom the method and manner of working of the differential duty liability adopted by department. If they were not satisfied with appellant s method of cost construction they should have themselves appointed a Cost Accountant as permitted in Central Excise law to ascertain the cost of production and worked out the assessable value as 115% / 110% of such cost, as the case may be, to demand any duty liability. Instead, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n question was however issued only on 03.05.2007. If appellants were consistently contesting their requirement to arrive at the assessable value of clearances under CAS-4, department could very well have appointed Cost Accountant as provided in the Central Excise Act, 1944 to ascertain whether the price adopted by them was correct or not. That was not done and instead, the instant SCN was issued, almost after three years after the initiation of correspondence between the department and the appellant, that too on the very dubious methodology of adding 15% to invoice prices as discussed above. 6. In the event, we are of the considered opinion that appellant will succeed both on the grounds of revenue-neutrality as well as on limitation. Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
