2018 (4) TMI 954

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d, the respondents were manufacturing "components of cable joining kits" which were being used by them captively for further manufacture of "cable jointing kits". Inasmuch as the cable jointing kits were exempted from payment of duty of excise, the respondents were liable to pay duty on the components. As the components were not being sold by the assessee and were being used captively, duty was paid by them on the basis of cost construction, in terms of the provisions of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000. The said costing data was being arrived at on the basis of figures for the previous year as available in their balance sheet. However, subsequently correct value was arrived at on the basis of actual cost contained in the finalized balan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ms of the rule 8 by * adopting costing method contained in CAS-4 guidelines and the finding of the Asst. Commissioner as regards the valuation travelled beyond the allegation made in the show-cause notice, which were only relatable to the adjustments between the short payment and excess payment. He also observed that the major payment of the demand was barred by limitation as the entire facts were in the knowledge of the Revenue and there was no suppression of facts. He accordingly set aside the impugned order of the Asst. Commissioner and allowed the appeal. Hence the present appeal filed by Revenue. 5. After hearing both sides and having gone through the impugned order, we find that admittedly the show-cause notice was for denial of adj....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Power Ltd v, Commissioner of Central Excise 2016 (342) ELT 253 (Tri. Del) wherein, in identical circumstances, it was held that where initial duty payment was made on the value which was not final as the final value in terms of rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 was to be arrived at only after closure of the yearn Revenue's proposal to consider only those cases where value initially adopted was less than the value later arrived at based upon CAS-4 certificate is not justified. Further, Tribunal in the case of Asiatic Oxygen & Acetylene Co. Ltd 2000 (117) ELT 597 (Tri.) has observed that price variation clause in the contract amounts to attaching provisionality to the approval grant....