2015 (11) TMI 605

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dv., Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv., Mrs. Aruna Gupta, Adv., Mr. Jitin Singhal, Adv., Mr. Pratik, Adv. And Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. V. Sridharan, Sr. Adv., Mr. M. P. Devanath,Adv., Ms. L. Charanaya, Adv., Mr. Hemant Bajaj, Adv., Mr. T.D. Satish, Adv., Mr. Anandh K., Adv. And Mr. Aditya Bhattacharya, Adv. ORDER The issue involved in the present appeal relates to the alle....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ve show-cause notices to the respondent herein for different periods alleging therein that the costing as done by the respondent - assessee was not in accordance with the method of costing and it resulted in under valuation and thus lesser payment of duty. The differential duty was, thus, demanded. The respondent herein, on going through the formula of costing as suggested by the Department, ob....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Cost of production as per submissions (11) = (9) + (10) 37764.81 36154.20 36154.20 Value at which duty has been paid (12) 37700.00 37700.00 45000.00 (upto December) (1999)       46500 (From January 2000)   The demand was confirmed after considering the reply that was filed by the respondent. The order of the adjudicating authority was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s submissions questioning the correctness of the view taken by the Tribunal. He further argued that once there was a demand in respect of four show-cause notices, such a demand should have gone into the issue de novo. We are unable to agree with the aforesaid submissions of Mr. Radhakrishnan. The impugned order of the Tribunal shall reflect that the Tribunal has kept in mind the Costing Account....