Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Central Excise Chennai- I Commissionerate Versus M/s. Castrol India Ltd.

2015 (4) TMI 243 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Valuation of goods - Provisional Assessment Quantity Discount Cash Discount Earlier department disallowed abatements towards cash discount, quantity discount etc which resulted in demand of differential duty - Validity of Tribunal's order - Held that:- The grievance of the Revenue is that in the present order of the Tribunal, the verification before the original authority is not qualified as has been done in the previous order. On a reading of both orders passed by the Tribunal, there appe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o support the claim in the finalisation of provisional assessment. However, such is not the case in the present order, which does not qualify any verification before the original authority. In such circumstances, this Court holds that the order of the Tribunal, impugned in the present appeal, should be in consonance with previous judgment [2008 (5) TMI 634 - CESTAT CHENNAI] - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of revenue. - C.M.A. No. 1216 of 2009 - Dated:- 12-3-2015 - R. Sudhakar And S. V .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is right in setting aside the orders of the lower authorities without considering the amended provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act and new provision of Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000? ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in allowing the assessee appeal when the respondent/assessee is not prepared to provide the correct transaction value, which is against the new provisi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

8 in Appeal E/PD/141/08 in E/Appeal No.172/08. Accordingly, this Court is not going into the questions of law as framed above, but is only inclined to deal with the aspect relating to the inconsistency in the order of the Tribunal. 3. In the case on hand, the respondent/assessee is manufacturing lubricating oils and allied preparations and the products are stock transferred to various depots and from there the goods are sold on payment of duty on provisional basis. While finalising the provision .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssessee had paid duty on the old valuation rules. 4. It appears that the very same assessee in proceedings before the Tribunal in Final Order Nos.445 & 446/2008 dated 7.5.08 pleaded valuation on normal transaction value as per the amended provisions of law and furnished calculations and, consequently claiming refund of duty. After considering the relevant provisions and the Board Circular No.643/34/02-CX dated 1.7.02, the Tribunal, in its earlier order, remanded the case by holding as under .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g the relevant particulars furnished by the assessee and the Chartered Accountant's certificates in proof thereof, and after giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 5. The above remand order is relatable to the calendar year 2004-05. In the present case, we are concerned with the calendar year 2007. The Tribunal, in view of the earlier order passed in respect of the very same assessee, viz., Final Order Nos.445 & 446/08 dated 7.5.08, allowed the appeal for the present calend .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fferential duty. In the circumstances, according to the appellant, the application for stay of operation of the impugned order has become infructuous. 4. After considering the case of the appellant and the submissions of the SDR, we find that valid reasons have not been made out by the Department in having deviated from the normal procedure which is in vogue since 1996. For 2007 also, it appears, the assessee was not possessed of discounts at the time of clearance of the goods to their depot/con .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version