Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2024 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 251 - CESTAT AHMEDABADValuation - Corrugated Boxes received free of cost by Appellant from buyers for packaging glassware will be included in the calculation of Assessable Value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or not - CENVAT Credit on scrap of capital goods - rule 3(5A) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the cost of corrugated boxes supplied by the buyers to the appellant is includible in the transaction value of the glassware manufactured and supplied by the appellant as per the provision of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act 1944 and the rules made thereunder. Reliance placed on this tribunal’s order in M/S. KAIRA CAN COMPANY LTD VERSUS C.C.E & S. T- AHMEDABAD-III [2019 (12) TMI 114 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] where it was held that in the present case apart from the transaction value the packing material supplied Free of Cost by the customer was also used by the appellant. The value of such packing material was not included. When any Excisable product is manufactured and cleared the value of such goods shall be the total value of goods in the form it is cleared from the factory of the Assessee. It is immaterial that whether a part of the material contained in the final product to borne the cost. Demand raised on the Appellant for the scrap of Capital Goods - HELD THAT:- As the show cause notice was badly issued by the Department without proper investigation into whether the Appellant has availed Cenvat Credit in respect to the scrap which was apparently cleared without payment of duty on such capital goods scrap. In the absence of any such investigation and the Department unable to adduce any evidence the allegation made in the Show cause notice is bad. In this position the submission of the appellant must be taken correct as there is no material produced by the revenue that states otherwise. Therefore, it is clear that the Appellant have cleared the scrap which is neither generated from cenvatable capital goods or cenvatable input nor from manufacturing. Therefore, the same is clearly not liable for any duty - The identical issue was raised in the appellant’s own case only for a different period wherein this tribunal has taken a consistent view that such scrap other than manufacturing and non-cenvatable is not liable to duty. Appeal allowed in part.
|