Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 709 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - includibility of certain costs - whether the valuation of the goods manufactured and supplied by the appellants for execution of turnkey project is correct and legal and whether the deduction claimed from the value is proper and legal? Held that: - the cost of manufacture should be based on the CAS-4 certificate which was certified by the Cost Accountant and not by the cost details submitted by the Managing Director. Cost of rubber rings - includibility - Held that: - rubber rings supplied by the appellant but it does not take part in or in relation to the manufacture of pipes manufactured by the appellants. The rubber rings is use for jointing of pipes at site which is an activity of laying of pipes, therefore the same cannot be attributed to manufacturing of pipes - cost not includible in the assessable value. Transportation cost - includibility - Held that: - the fact is not under dispute that there is no sale of goods through the depot. The clearance of goods is made from the factory gate of appellant to the pipeline site of the customer - the valuation should be done on the basis of cost of manufacture + notional profit therefore the transportation in such valuation method cannot be included - the cost of transportation given in this case cannot be included. Written off cost on account of theft or other loss - Held that: - there is no dispute of quantity of pipes cleared by the appellant. Certain quantity of pipe is on account of theft or rejection which has taken place after removal from the factory - After removal if there is any shortage the same cannot be deducted from the overall value of the goods cleared - the value of written off goods cannot be deducted from the value. CENVAT credit - denial on the ground that clearance of goods effected prior to Central Excise Registration - Held that: - only for this reason CENVAT credit cannot be denied. If it is found that the duty paid inputs were used in the manufacture of excisable goods on which the excise duty is payable, the credit is admissible irrespective of whether the clearance of goods took place before or after Registration - the Adjudicating Authority needs to re-quantify the demand. Matter remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for re-quantification of duty - appeal allowed by way of remand.
|