TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 312
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant Shri. Sanjiv Kinker, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of the Cotton Yarn and supply to the interrelated units / theirs group companies. They were valuing their goods on cost construction method. Since at the time of the removal the cost of manufacturing not available, they were paying ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the date of removal of the goods. However, his submission is only on limitation. He submits that the appellant has disclosed their modus operandi of valuation of the goods vide letter dated 14 July, 2006. According to the said letter the appellants were paying duty by applying due date and since the value was not ascertained at the time of removal of the goods the differential duty was paid after ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the extended period cannot be invoked. 3. Shri Sanjiv Kinker, Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned orders. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. As regards the merits of the case as conceded by the Learned Counsel and held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authori....