TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (11) TMI 142
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the impugned order, the Commissioner has revised the assessable value of the glass bottles manufactured by the appellants and demanded differential duty for the period February 1988 to November 1991 and demanded duty of over Rs. 90 lakhs and imposed penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs. 2. The contention of the appellant is that the Commissioner was in error in holding that there was suppression of facts whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the calculation of cost of production. After raising the objection about non-inclusion of administration expenses, the assessee had taken a revised certificate from their Chartered Accountant about the cost of production of glass bottle for the year 1991-92 in which administration and financial overheads had been added and revised cost of production had been shown as Rs. 2.61 per bottle instead of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case, the learned Counsel took us to the relevant price declarations in order to show that it was clear from the Chartered Accountant's certificate filed by the appellants that the cost taken in its account is only "factory cost" and that the cost included only "direct material cost", "direct wages", "fuel" and "factory overheads". The certificate has also specifically stated the period of the....