9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in arriving at the assessable value of stock transferred goods adopting CAS-4 method for the entire period. Needless to mention that CAS-4 method for assessing the value of stock transferred goods have been introduced in the year 2003. Before, the said introduction, there were lot of confusion in the determination of value of stock transferred goods and goods captively consumed. In these circumstances, there is no justification to impose penalty on the appellant for not applying CAS-4 method in the determination of assessable value initially. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the appellant is set aside demand limited to the normal period of limitation. The assessee s appeals are remanded to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the period from July, 2000 to September, 2007 totaling to ₹ 78,10,874/- has been confirmed with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who after considering the determination of assessable value, applying CAS-4 method, reworked the demand to ₹ 13,33,499/- with interest and penalty as ₹ 11,93,792/-. Aggrieved by the said order, both Revenue as well as assessees are in appeal. 4. At the outset, learned Advocate Shri S.J. Vyas for the asseessee-appellant vehemently argued that demand of differential duty of ₹ 11,93,792/- was confirmed for the period July, 2000 to March, 2005 is partly barred by limitation. It is his contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certificate before the adjudicating authority would not in any manner affect the determination of correct assessable value or the duty. The Revenue has not produced any certificate challenging the CAS-4 method adopted by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order as incorrect. 6. Learned AR for the Revenue has reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) as far as confirmation of demand is concerned. However, on the reduction of the demand as originally upheld by the adjudicating authority, reiterating the grounds of appeal, the learned AR for the Revenue has submitted that the assessee appellant has failed to produce CAS-4 certificate to determine the assessable value before the original autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said method of determination of assessable value is incorrect or CAS-4 certificate produced by the assessee-appellant is incorrect. Therefore, we find merit in the observation of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in arriving at the assessable value of stock transferred goods adopting CAS-4 method for the entire period. Needless to mention that CAS-4 method for assessing the value of stock transferred goods have been introduced in the year 2003. Before, the said introduction, there were lot of confusion in the determination of value of stock transferred goods and goods captively consumed. In these circumstances, we do not find justification to impose penalty on the appellant for not applying CAS-4 method in the determination of assessable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
