TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1091
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he period 2007-2008 to 2013-2014. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged inter alia, in the manufacture of toilet soaps, soap noodles falling under Chapter 34 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Appellant manufacturers sodium salt of fatty acid noodles (SSFA Noodles) of soaps of different flavours at its factory at Malanpur, which are intermediate products for the manufacture of toilet soaps. Appellant clears SSFA Noodles to its sister concerns located in tax exempted areas, who use such SSFA noodles in the manufacture of toilet soaps, which are cleared without payment of duty by availing area based exemption. During the relevant period, appellant cleared SSFA noodles on payment of duty by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by disregarding the excess payments made by the assessee. The show cause notices for the various periods were originally adjudicated and the differential duty confirmed. However, when appeals were filed against such orders before this Tribunal, the matter was remanded back to the original authority for denovo decisions. Now, the adjudicating authority has passed the impugned order covering the periods from 2007-08 to 2013-14 in which he has confirmed the differential duty demands by taking cognizance only of the short paid duty but ignoring the excess paid duty. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the appellant. 4. With the above background, we heard Sh. Amit Jain, Ld. Advocate for the appellants and Sh. M. R. Sharma, ld. AR ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....luation is also required to be done in terms of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 following the Cost Accountant Standards (CAS-4). It is not in dispute that valuation has been done properly as per CAS-4. However, such valuation has been done on the basis of CAS-4 certificate prepared on the basis of annual cost of production. The appellant has paid duty on a month to month basis on the basis of the cost of the goods for the previous month. When the valuation is finalised on an annual basis, there has been short payment of duty in some months as well as excess payment in other months. The appellant has already paid the excess duty wherever the value as per CAS-4 is more than the value adopted for payment of duty, but after a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he time of removal of goods when the invoices are prepared. The legal position as submitted by the appellant cannot be contested. However, it is an admitted fact that the appellants themselves did not follow costing to arrive at deemed transaction value for each clearance. They have considered a period of many months and worked out the costing, in terms of CAS-4 for that period and paid duty. Thereafter, they revised said costing when there are changes in raw material cost. That being the case, we find that the reliance placed by the appellant on the principle that time of removal is relevant and, hence, annual costing is not tenable, is unsustainable. The fact remains that while the duty liability has to be discharged at the time of remova....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that where goods are cleared on cost of production worked out as per the audited accounts of the previous audited period, it is advisable to prepare a fresh certificate of cost of production based on the audited accounts of the period for which the goods are cleared and the differential duty is paid or taken credit of as the case may be. In such circumstances, it is advisable to compute the actual material cost as per the issue valuation adopted by the assessee for material issues. Further, in the FAQ on CAS-4 the ICAI clarified that cost determination of a product is always for a period and computed on the basis of actual accounts of the company. The costs so determined should be actual cost reconciled with the audited accounts of the co....