Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the finalization of provisional assessment on a month-wise basis, with adoption of an averaged component cost and without clear disclosure of the basis of computation, as well as without due consideration of excess duty already paid, required interference and reconsideration.
Analysis: The appeal arose from finalization of provisional assessment under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The record did not clearly explain how the month-wise figures were derived or how the uniform component cost was arrived at, even though the goods consisted of multiple horn varieties with widely varying input costs. The claim that excess duty paid in some months should be adjusted against the differential demand also required examination on the basis of proper records. Since the existing material was insufficient to verify the correctness of the computation and the manner in which the provisional assessment had been finalized, the matter needed a fresh look by the original authority.
Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the original authority for de novo consideration with opportunity to the appellant to produce additional evidence and with directions to complete the exercise expeditiously.