2020 (2) TMI 180

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espondent during the relevant period September, 1990 to February, 2000 failed to include the cost of the mould in the manufacturing cost of the finished goods viz. articles of plastic, hence periodical show-cause notices were issued to them to recover the differential duty with interest. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn held that amortization cost of the moulds @ 0.66% be added to the value of the finished goods and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for re-calculation of duty accordingly. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue is in appeal. 3. Learned AR for the Revenue reiterating the grounds of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the cost of moulds from 0.66% to 1.75% as per Revenue's contention, it would not exceed Rs. 50.00 lakhs, hence, the present appeal is covered by the litigation policy Circular dated 22.08.2019 issued by the Board. Further, he has submitted that since periodical show-cause notices were issued to the respondent proposing enhancement of the value and recovery of differential duty, hence, in absence of suppression of facts, recovery of interest under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944 for the disputed period has been rightly set aside by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. The short issue involved in the present case for consideration is whether the amortization cost of the moulds be a....