TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 322
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 i.e 115 % of cost of production prior to 5.08.2003 and on the basis of 100% cost of production after said period. After finalization and audit of the period pertaining to the financial year 2002 - 03, the revised cost certificate was prepared and the revised cost was determined. The Appellant also paid differential duty. Later the revenue found that the valuation of the goods has not been determined in conformity with the guidelines and the provisions of the CAS - 4 standards issued by the Institute of the Costs & Work Accountants of India (ICWA) and adopted by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 and CBEC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessable value computed by the Appellant on the basis of cost certificates verified by the Cost Accountant were true and correct. However the scrutiny conducted revealed that the assessable value disclosed by the Appellant was wrong. The Appellant has deliberately suppressed the fact of correct material costs as well as other factors of cost and further misdeclared the values of cost with intention to evade duty. It was proposed to demand differential duty alongwith interest and to impose penalty upon the Appellant. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands and imposed penalty against the Appellant vide impugned order. Hence the present appeal by Appellant. 2. Shri Rajesh Ostwal, ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....noticed. The Appellant had once declared the value of the goods to the revenue and paid some differential duty on the value so arrived. However the facts remains that even after such duty so paid, the Appellant were required to compute the duty in terms of Valuation Rules. The Appellant were also aware of the Valuation method. It was only after enquiry by the department that they submitted the cost certificate and on that basis the revenue found that the Appellant had paid less duty. The Appellant has pleaded that they are not liable to pay duty as the whatever duty is payable is available to their sister concern as credit. We find that the issue of revenue neutrality is to be decided on the basis of facts of the each case and the judgments....