2016 (10) TMI 870

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ya, Advocate for the appellant Sh. Yogesh Agarwal, DR for the Respondent ORDER Per B. Ravichandran The appeal is against order-in-appeal dated 25.02.2010 of Commissioner (Appeals-I) Raipur. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of hot-rolled products of iron and steel liable to Central Excise duty. They cleared these products on payment of duty to various customers and also to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hereas for the period 08.06.2005 to 31.03.2006 the value on which duty was paid was higher than CAS-4 based value resulting in excess payment of duty. The point of dispute in the present case is whether the overall duty payment for the whole year of 2005-06 can be considered together to arrive at liability of the assessee for duty on captively consumed goods. The lower authorities held that the de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....owing the CAS-4. When the value is arrived at based on annual data it is apparent that whatever value adopted by the appellant for captive clearances during the year are not based on final price as the same is not known at the time of clearance. When the value is arrived at on annual data basis we find that the proposal of Revenue to consider only those cases where the value initially adopted was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....through the provisions of Section 11B. In this context, we note that the appellants have approached the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner on 20.06.2005 itself for a permission for provisional assessment under Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for the financial year 2005-06. The said request was rejected. We note that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) finds such request and subsequent rejection....