2009 (11) TMI 444

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeal Nos. E/2032-2033/06. The main challenge in the said appeals was against a demand of differential duty for the period 1999-2000 to 2003-04 total ling to Rs. 1,28,55,322.70. In the impugned order, the ld. Commissioner had demanded duty of Rs. 34,62,462.86 from the assessee for the period 1999-2000 and duty of Rs. 90,89,490.56 for the rest of the period. The demand of duty for the first period (1999-2000) of dispute was set aside by this Tribunal in the above final order, on the ground that the assessee had correctly determined the assessable value of the goods on the basis of the price charged in their sales to independent unrelated buyers for the said period. As regards the second part (2001 to 2003-04) of the period of dispute, the de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s no mistake in this part of the final order, according to the assessee. In the subsequent para graphs of the final order, the challenge against the demand of duty for the second part of the period of dispute was examined and the assessable value deter mined by the Asstt.. Director (Cost) of the Department appointed under Section 14A of the Central Excise Act was accepted and consequently, the demand of differential duty was sustained. In relation to this part of the final order, the assessee has been able to show that there were independent sales of the excisable goods to unrelated buyers during this period and therefore, notwithstanding the relationship found between the assessee and their buyer, the goods cleared during this period ought....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....graphs" "8. As regards the objection raised by the appellants for engaging the services of the Asstt. Director (Cost) to go into the costing aspects of the goods manufactured by them for the second part of the period of dispute we have found merit therein. The Asstt. Director (Cost) is an employee of the Department and is not a Cost Accountant entitled to carry on the profession in terms of Section 2(1)(b) read with Section 2(2) of the Cost and Works Accountants Act, 1959 read with Explanation Ito Section 14A of the Central Excise Act. He should not have been appointed under Section 14A of the Act to estimate the cost of production, let alone the assessable value of the goods. An independent Cost Accountant practising his profession in a....