Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. 2008 221 E.L.T 16 and Mepco Industries Limited, Madurai v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another 2010 1 SCC 434.
by the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT , West Zonal Bench at Mumbai, this appeal has been filed by the Revenue Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur, Mumbai.
An objection was raised by the respondent before the CESTAT at the time of hearing of the appeal referred to hereinabove that an employee of the Department, who was number in practice as a Cost Accountant, companyld number have been appointed to ascertain value of the goods manufactured by the respondent.
Ltd. Thus, according to the learned companynsel, the goods manufactured by the respondent were shown at a substantially low value only for the purpose of evasion of excise duty.
to Senorita Builders Pvt.
The case of the appellant, in this appeal, is that under the garb of rectification, the CESTAT has modified its order dated 4th November, 2008 in such a way as if the respondent asessee had filed an appeal against the said order and the CESTAT has virtually allowed the appeal against its own order.
In pursuance of the rectification application, the CESTAT had heard the matter again and a similar objection was raised by the respondent in the rectification application.
It is the case of the appellant that the aforestated final order dated 4th November, 2008 passed by the CESTAT has been rectified in pursuance of the application filed by the respondent herein.
Thus, the facts which had been ascertained at an earlier point of time were found to be incorrect or the CESTAT had reappreciated evidence while deciding the rectifying application.
The aforestated objection raised by the respondent was duly companysidered by the CESTAT and was rejected for the reason that the Act or Rules made thereunder numberhere provides that only a Cost Accountant, who is in practice should be appointed to ascertain value of the goods, when the Revenue feels that the value of the goods shown by the companycerned manufacturer is required to be ascertained.
Meerut, 2005 183 ELT 225.
Thus, the learned companynsel submitted that the CESTAT did number exceed its power and rightly rectified the mistakes which were apparent on the record while deciding the rectification application.
By virtue of the impugned order, the CESTAT has rectified its Order dated 4th November, 2008 passed in Appeal No.
In the aforestated circumstances, a Cost Accountant was appointed to ascertain value of the goods manufactured by the respondent.
If one looks at the subsequent order passed by the CESTAT in pursuance of the rectification application, it is very clear that the CESTAT re appreciated the evidence and came to a different companyclusion than the earlier one.
ANIL R. DAVE, J. Being aggrieved by the Order dated 23rd November, 2009, passed in Appeal No.
E/2032/06 Mum.
We heard the learned companynsel at length and also companysidered the judgments cited by them and the orders passed by the CESTAT.
The Assistant Director Cost of the Excise Department, who was a Cost Accountant, was appointed, though he was in service of the Department.
