2007 (2) TMI 376

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hakur, Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T) (for the Bench)]. - Duty demands and penalties are in regard to processed yarn cleared by M/s. S. Kumars Ltd. during the period 1999-2000. The appellant was discharging duty liability based on approved price list wherein assessable value was worked out by cost of production method. 2. Under the impugned order, i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed to be about Rs. 2.2 crores. Another objection is that interest cost remains included in the assessable value. It is being pointed out that interest cost is not required to be included in determining the cost of production in terms of Para 1.5 of CAS 4. There is also an objection addition made towards over heads (duty demand of about Rs. 115 crores) is not justified. 4. The contention in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted as the basis for assessment, there could be no intention to evade payment of duty. The duty demand beyond the normal period is Rs. 3.8 crores. 5. The learned Joint CDR has taken us through the impugned order and has contended that since the assessee was not filing actual data about cost of production, authorities were justified in working out the cost in the manner done under the Adjud....