9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es - We further note that the bought out items purchased by the appellant cleared as such will not attract provisions of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules. Inasmuch as the disputed issue relates to the correct quantification which can be done only at the level of Original Adjudicating Authority, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for fresh decision. Needless to say that the reports relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority would be provided to the assessee with an opportunity to them to put forth their case. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Excise Appeal No.50241 of 2015-[DB] - FINAL ORDER NO. 71080/2019 - Dated:- 15-5-2019 - Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And Mr. ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, which provided adoption of assessable value at 110% of the cost of the goods. Accordingly, demand to the tune of ₹ 3.63 crores (Approx) were raised against them by way of issuance of show cause notice dated 29 April, 2011 by invoking the longer period of limitation. 3. During the course of adjudication, the appellant produced on record their Chartered Accountant certificate arriving at the value of the parts in terms of the provisions of CAS-4. The said certificate produced by the assessee was sent to the appellant s Jurisdictional Superintendent for verification and two different reports dated 30 July, 2014 and 30 September, 2014 were placed on record by the Range Superintendent. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by them, they were available the credit of the same. The credit was available even to their sister units who were further utilizing the same for payment of Service Tax under the category of Commercial Construction for which the appellant was centrally registered at their Noida head-office. He submits that the Adjudicating Authority has observed that since the appellant was providing services falling under the category of works contract, they were not entitled to the Cenvat Credit and as such the said plea of the assessee is without any basis. However, learned advocate clarifies that they were not paying service tax under the works contract and were discharging their service tax liability at the full rate after availing credit of duty so pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht out items purchased by the appellant cleared as such will not attract provisions of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules. Inasmuch as the disputed issue relates to the correct quantification which can be done only at the level of Original Adjudicating Authority, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for fresh decision. Needless to say that the reports relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority would be provided to the assessee with an opportunity to them to put forth their case. Further, the issue of limitation is also kept upon for fresh decision in the light of the assessee s plea of revenue neutrality as also in the light of various decisions to which they may choose to refer to and rely. We fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
