2006 (6) TMI 36

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the difference of figures shown in RG1 Register and the Balance Sheet for the year 1994-95 to 1998-99. With regard to the allegation of valuation, there has been escalation of prices and as such the Revenue has proceeded to enhance the value on the allegation of suppression of facts. 2. The contention of the appellant is that they are paying the duty on the ex-factory price as determined by the Cost Construction Method and Provisions of 4 (i) (a) of Valuation Rules. They contended that the Department was aware of the fact that the assessable value of their products had been based on Cost Construction Method and the RT12 returns were duty assessed. They pointed out that the certificates issued by the Chartered Accountant disclosed that t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....res shown in the Balance Sheet were taken to show that there was clandestine removal. In that case also the valuation had been revised. He submits that this Bench after due  consideration in the case of Karnataka Cement Pipes Factory Vs. CCE by Final Order Nos. 757 and 758/2005 dated 20.10.2005 disagreed with the assessee's contention pertaining to the escalation charges not to be added in the assessable value. The Tribunal set aside the demands on allegation of clandestine removal based solely on the figures shown in the Balance Sheet in the light of several judgments of the Tribunal. The Tribunal also remanded the matter to grant the benefit of cum duty and rework out the same. The learned Counsel submits that in this case, they are ....