TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1930
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....based on CAS-4 formula, whereas Department holds that certain elements like 'cost of service' were not included. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the appellant manufactures inter-alia Bulk Detergent Powder under the brand name 'SURF' and 'SUNLIGHT' falling under Chapter 34 of CETA, major portion of which is captively consumed by them in their factory and certain portion was stock-transferred to their job workers for packing into smaller consumer packs. Since there was no comparable sales price available for the Bulk Detergent Powder, appellants were paying duty on the value arrived at based on cost certificates issued by Cost Accountants. One of the elements of cost was termed as 'cost of service' by appellant, which was for the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e oil and HSD. He further submits that department had picked up cost certificate of June, 2001 and insisted to include 'cost of service' into the cost of production arrived at based on CAS-4, for the disputed period also, under the presumption that the said element was not included in the costing, which is factually incorrect. When the cost of production arrived at in accordance with CAS-4 formula, addition of any other heads of expenses does not arise at all. The 'cost of service' was already included in the cost of material consumed and direct expenses contained in the CAS-4 certificates and the detailed workings attached thereto. The CAS-4 certificates issued by the Cost/Chartered Accountants must be given due weightage for the purpos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he demand covered in show cause notice dated 06.12.2007 is barred by limitation, in the absence of any suppression, mis-statement, etc. which gets evidenced from the following: a) That appellants filed self-declaration of classification and valuation of the disputed products, supported by certificates issued by the Chartered/Cost Accountants, from time to time, and hence, extended period is not sustainable, in support of which reliance is placed on the following judgment; i) Pahwa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. [2005(189) ELT 257 (SC)] b) Appellant have acted bonafidely and here was no ulterior motive on their part to undervalue the Bulk Detergent Powder stock transferred to the job-workers and, hence, extended period is not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aw Material Consumption for "SURF' and 'SUNLIGHT' and 'WHEEL' for the period April, 2007 to December, 2007 the quantity and value of HS Diesel and Water was found shown to be '0' & '0.00' and total absence of even mention of Furnace Oil, makes it ample evident that the claim of the said appellant that 'the cost elements viz. Power, Water, Furnace Oil and HS Diesel have been duly considered and incorporated in the costing of the said goods as per CAS-4 for the purpose of valuation for captive consumption' is untrue and hence not acceptable. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 6. We find that the issue is no more resintegra in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion and development rebate under the Income Tax Act. "Written-down value" depended upon the "actual cost" of the assets to the assessee. The expression "actual cost" had not been defined in the Income Tax Act, 1922 and the question was whether the interest paid before the commencement of production on the amount borrowed for the acquisition and installation of the plant and machinery could be considered to be a part of the "actual cost" of the assets to the assessee. As the expression "actual cost" had not been defined, this Court was of the view that it should be construed "in the sense which no commercial man would misunderstand. For this purpose, it could be necessary to ascertain the connotation of the above expression in accordance wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 158 (Tri. - Bang.) for the period 1995 to 2000 has directed the department to apply CAS-4 for the determination of the cost of production of the captively consumed goods. In ITC v. CCE - 2005 (190) E.L.T. 119 the Tribunal held that the department has to calculate the cost of production in terms of CAS-4. Other decisions of the Tribunal, wherein it has directed that CAS-4 be applied for determination of the cost of production, are Teja Engineering v. CCE - 2006 (193) E.L.T. 100 (Tri- Chennai), Ashima Denims v. CCE - 2005 (191) E.L.T. 318 (TriMumbai), and Arti Industries v. CCE - 2005 (186) E.L.T. 208 (TriChennai). This is therefore a consistent view taken by the Tribunal. The department has not filed any appeal in these cases and accepted t....