2014 (4) TMI 333

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing a view that agarbathi masala which is captively consumed by the appellant is a marketable and excisable product, proceedings were initiated which has culminated in confirmation of demand for duty of more than Rs.11 crores for the period from 10/2010 to 09/2011 and penalty of Rs.3 crores has also been imposed under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. The learned counsel submitted that in respect of the very same appellant for the earlier periods, in two cases the matter had come before this Tribunal and this Tribunal had directed the appellant to deposit 25% of the amount demanded, however, he submits that in this case the same principle cannot be followed because appellant had made a mistake while providing the data for arrivin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Commissioner to reject it outright. Since the learned counsel submitted that it has resulted in considerable increase in the quantum of demand, it would be in the interest of justice to remand the matter back at this stage so that the Commissioner considers the CAS-4 certificate and other issues. 3. At this stage, the learned AR would submit that the Commissioner has considered the issue and in paragraph 17.1, she has made certain observations. For better appreciation, we reproduce these observations:            The valuation of agarbathi masala has to be done in accordance with Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 which requires the party to furnish the cost of materials, labour c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....difference should not be rejected. The whole issue has been dealt that in this paragraph and only on the ground no adequate data has been furnished as per CAS-4 certificate, the figures have been rejected. In our opinion, in the absence of any proof to show that the earlier data was as per CAS-4 requirements and whether revised figure is not as per CAS-4 has not been considered. In our opinion, since the issue has heavy implication, these aspects need to be considered by the Commissioner in greater detail and if necessary the verification of details or whatever data required by the Commissioner can be called for and we feel that if the appellant has made a mistake while replying to the earlier show-cause notice and while defending the earli....