2026-VIL-718-CESTAT-CHE-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise - Determination of assessable value of excisable goods for captive consumption based on cost of production - The assessee, a manufacturer of automotive batteries, had stock-transferred lead oxide to its other unit for captive consumption - Revenue alleged that the assessee had wilfully suppressed the cost of production and adopted its own costing method instead of the mandated CAS-4 method, thereby short-paying the duty. The assessee contended that the cost certificates provided were for the relevant period and not based on previous periods, and that the cost of lead, being the major raw material, was determined based on the moving average price of the leading domestic producer – HELD – It is the case of the Revenue is that the Appellant did follow the costing method in terms of CAS-4; the Cost Statement prepared by the Appellant was not in conformity with the general principles of costing in CAS-4 and that the cost certificates furnished by the Appellant relate to the past periods and hence, same are not reliable. Whereas it is the case of the appellant that all the CAS-4 certificates were furnished for the relevant period as certified by Cost Accountant and that none of the CAS-4 certificates stated that the same were prepared based on the costing of any previous period/s - In the backdrop of the above arguments, the matter is remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority to verify the CAS-4 certificates submitted by the assessee and determine the assessable value accordingly. If the Cost Statements relate to the period in question, then perhaps the assertion of the appellant may have to be accepted. The demand could only be for the normal period and not the extended period, as there was no evidence of wilful suppression of facts – The Appeal stands disposed of

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page