2020 (2) TMI 180

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of mould @ 1.75% would definitely be less than ₹ 50.00 lakhs, hence covered by the Litigation Policy Circular dated 22.08.2019. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Excise Appeal No. 370 of 2012 - A/85027/2020 - Dated:- 3-1-2020 - HON BLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON BLE MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Anil Choudhary, DC, Authorized Representative for the Appellant Shri Mayur Shroff, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. MV/RKS/76/2011 dated 14.12.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-I. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the responde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion that the amortization cost of the mould to be included in the value of plastic goods manufactured is 0.66% against 1.75% concluded by the adjudicating authority on the basis of the Chartered Accountant s certificate produced by the respondent during the course of hearing. The Department has not produced any contrary certificate to counter the said specific finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Further, he has submitted that pursuant to the said Order-in-Appeal, the Department has calculated the differential duty amount payable as ₹ 14,41,845/- by the respondent considering the amortization cost as 0.66% of the value of the moulds. It is his further contention that even if the differential duty is calculated by enhancing t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ue will be = ₹ 1.06 x 100 Price of one unit (as decided earlier) = 1.06 x 100 ₹ 160 = 0.66% 17.1 Accordingly, I hold that the amortization percentage to be added in the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the appellants during the period in dispute, will be 0.66% and the duty demanded in the impugned show-cause notices, is therefore required to be reworked out accordingly. The impugned Order-in-Original shall accordingly stand modified to that extent. Further, relying upon the ratio of the decision of the Hon ble CESTAT in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. Shantilal C Mehta 2009-TIOL-1969-CESTAT-Mum, the jurisdictional Assistant/Dy. Commissione .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X