AICMAS: CAS-4

                                            CESTAT NEW DELHI

2013 (291) E.L.T. 268 (Tri. – Del.)

HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BHOPAL

Valuation under Rule 8 of the of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 – Detergents and Sulphonic acid supplied to sister concern – Held that:- Cost of production as certified in the Chartered Accountant certificate dated 7-9-2002 i.e. Rs. 52,000/- per M.T. for Surf Excel, the detergent powder and Rs. 62,000/- per M.T. for sulphonic acid should have been adopted, while according to the appellant this costing had been wrongly done on the insistence of the department by including the head office expenses and marketing and distribution expenses which are not required to be included in the costing in terms of CAS-4 – Costing certificate are not in the CAS-4 format and accordingly it cannot be said as to whether the costing had been done in terms of CAS-4 costing standard or not – Matter has to be remanded for de novo adjudication after determining the cost of production of both the products during each financial year during the period of dispute strictly in terms of CAS-4 standard and in that format by a Cost Accountant appointed by the department and in the light of the Cost Accountant’s certificate regarding the cost of production of the products, in question, during each financial year, the matter must be re-adjudicated.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s