https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203150 The Tribunal and Commissioner (Appeals) were justified in accepting the assessee's FIFO computation by treating January 2004 as the relevant month rather than December 2003, because the appellate authorities had examined the annexures and calculation basis and found January 2004 to be the most proximate month to clearance of inputs. The High Court held that this conclusion rested on concurrent factual findings, disclosed no perversity or legal error, and therefore no substantial question of law arose. The issue was decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. en-us Wed, 22 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203150 The Tribunal and Commissioner (Appeals) were justified in accepting the assessee's FIFO computation by treating January 2004 as the relevant month rather than December 2003, because the appellate authorities had examined the annexures and calculation basis and found January 2004 to be the most proximate month to clearance of inputs. The High Court held that this conclusion rested on concurrent factual findings, disclosed no perversity or legal error, and therefore no substantial question of law arose. The issue was decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 22 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203150