2015 (11) TMI 1581

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appellant Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate for the respondent ORDER This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Original No: 28/KKS/2003-2004 dated 31/03/2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai- III. The assessee-respondent has also filed cross-objection against the very same order-in-original which has been treated as an appeal as they are contesting the confir....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on the respondent-assessee has sought to dispute the confirmation of demand itself. 4. Both the sides point out that identical issue of the very same assessee was agitated before the Tribunal in appeal Nos: E/3209/2004 & E/3308/3005 which was disposed of by the final order No. A/2397-2399/15/EB dated 04/08/2015 and submit that for the period post 01/07/2000 the value has to be computed as per t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....graph 46 as under: "In view of the above analysis, in our view, for the period prior to 01/07/2000 the value determined by the Commissioner is correct and we uphold the same.  As far as computation of value after 01/07/2000 is concerned the same can be computed as per CAS-4.  We also note that respondent-assessee has not produced any such costing details/CAS-4 certificate during....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d at this stage." 7. The above said findings as recorded by the bench will be applicable in its full force in the issue in hand and following the same, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for following the directions of this Tribunal as reproduced herein above and arrive at the duty liability for the period in question in this appeal. 8. T....