2018 (12) TMI 660

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R), for appellant Shri M.H. Patil, Advocate, for respondent ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra This is an appeal filed against order-in-original No. 39/2010/C dated 14.7.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Nagpur. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of tractor and parts. The parts of the tractors manu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....overy of the differential duty with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the proceedings initiated against the respondent were dropped. Hence, the Revenue is in appeal. 3. Reiterating the grounds of appeal, the learned AR for the Revenue has submitted that the learned Commissioner has erred in referring to the CAS-4 method circulated by CBEC vide Circular No.692/8/2003-CX dated 13.2.2003. It ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. - 2015-TIOL-2794-CESTAT-MUM. Further, the learned Advocate for the respondent submits that there is no substantial difference in determination of the cost of production before and after amendment to Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, the aforesaid expenses are not to form part of the cost of production of the manufactured goods. 5. Heard both sides an....