2017 (1) TMI 598

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....raj Choudhuri, Advocate for respondent Per : Ramesh Nair The fact of the case is that the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of Fishing net, Sports net and other nets. In the course of manufacture of final product the intermediate product namely HDPE Monofilament Yarn generates. Since the final product is cleared under exemption, they are paying the duty on the intermediate product on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd is also hit by limitation as the demand was raised for the extended period. 2. Shri Sanjay Hasija, Ld. Supdt. (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal. He submits that there is a general guideline for the purpose of costing of product as per CAS4. In the present case the goods in question have been cleared for home consumption, therefore in case of home cons....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....He further submits that in the absence of any contrary material, the costing cannot be disputed. It is his submission that the demand is time barred for the reason that it was raised beyond the stipulated time period of 1 year. There is no suppression of fact as the payment of duty on captive consumption is very much known to the department and the CAS4 certificate was also submitted from time to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that when the goods are cleared captively, the valuation of goods is governed by Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 which is based on the cost construction method, if at all there is any variation in the cost, the department was free to issue show cause notice within the normal period of 1 year. In the present case, the demand pertains to the period September 2002 to March 2003 and the....