2017 (9) TMI 610

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....value based on market price charged. Revenue raised the objection and pointed out that excisable goods were removed on the basis of 110% of the cost of manufacture in terms of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, accordingly, the appellant paid the duty as per CAS-4 certificate. Due to variation in prices at the end of the year appellant found that in some cases they have paid excess duty as per CAS-4 and in some cases they have paid less duty. After adjustment of the duty payable by the appellant and excess duty paid by the appellant, the appellant filed refund claim of excess duty paid during the said period and in support of their refund claim the appellant produced certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant showing 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

....urisdictional 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 is of no consequence to decide the appellant's liability for duty. We find the reasoning given by the lower authority as devoid of merit. In the present case, the appellant was not allowed to have provisional assessment and the department now proceeds to demand of duty selectively for periods within the same financial year wherever the value is less than the Rule 8 value and refused adjustment within the same financial year when the value is determin....