9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two manufacturing units, one at Chikalthana, Aurangabad and the other at Waluj, Aurangabad. The above stated two appeals are respectively filed by the said two units of the appellant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was manufacturing various products and clearing the same to their own manufacturing units. As a result, they were required to pay central excise duty by determining value of the goods as provided under Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The said rule required submission of cost of manufacture under a proforma called CAS-4 certificate. Since the said certificate was not readily available for the reason that for issue of such a certificate, cost data is required. Therefore, Revenue allowed the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and passed orders finalizing provisional assessment and that the said orders were never reviewed by the department on the ground that the quarterly CAS-4 certificates submitted by the appellant were not correct. Appellant also enclosed one copy of such order passed on 11.11.2010 by Deputy Commissioner finalizing assessment for the quarter for the period from 01.07.2009 to 30.09.2009. In addition, appellant raised various grounds. Learned original authority passed the impugned order. Learned original authority, at para 18.3.1 of his impugned order, has held that the demands on the basis of costing of CAS-4 on annual basis by DD (Cost) appears without authority and not valid at all. However, he has stated that some arithmetical mistakes have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d submissions made. We find that during the period of dispute, the appellant was regularly submitting cost data for finalization of provisional assessment and provisional assessments were regularly being finalized. In reply to the show cause notices, appellant has raised the issue that the orders finalizing the provisional assessments passed by the Assistant/Deputy Commissioners were never reviewed by the department. We note that on regular basis the provisional assessments were finalized and the finalization of provisional assessments were adjudication orders passed by Assistant or Deputy Commissioner. If Revenue was aggrieved by the said orders, the course of action provided by law for Revenue was to prefer appeal against such finalizatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
