Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (5) TMI 246 - SUPREME COURT

2015 (5) TMI 246 - SUPREME COURT - 2015 (319) E.L.T. 360 (SC) - Valuation of goods - Levy of penalty u/s 11AC - appellant was not taking into consideration the "other works overhead" element in arriving at the assessable value though according to the Department, it formed part of the costing element of 'conversion cost' shown in the costing report - Held that:- Appellant had not included the cost of 'other works overhead' in arriving at the assessable value though it forms part of the costing el .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e final costing and it is the chartered accountant of the appellant which had prepared the said costing and submitted to the Department. Therefore, the appellant cannot feign ignorance or be pretentious about its innocence in allegedly acting upon the cost audit report as supplied by P&G. - Decided against assessee. - Civil Appeal No. 7357 of 2004 - Dated:- 22-4-2015 - A. K. Sikri And Rohinton Fali Nariman,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr M P Devanath, Adv., Mr Vivek Sharma, Adv., Ms L Charanaya, Adv .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the appeal of the appellant against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise has been dismissed. The appellant had been doing the job work for M/s. Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Healthcare Limited (hereinafter referred to as P&G). The agreement in this behalf was signed between P&G and the appellant in December, 1994, for the manufacture of various goods such as Vicks Action 500, Vicks Vaporub Super Balm, Ultra Clearasil and Mediker on job work basis. Raw material for this pu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y liability accordingly. The Department undertook the scrutiny of cost sheet and noticed that the appellant was not taking into consideration the "other works overhead" element in arriving at the assessable value though according to the Department, it formed part of the costing element of 'conversion cost' shown in the costing report. This resulted in issuance of show cause notice dated 30.07.2001 demanding an amount of ₹ 45,50,625/- as differential duty for period July, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the appellant filed appeal before the CESTAT, Bangalore which has been dismissed by the CESTAT vide orders dated 16.10.2004 however, penalty of ₹ 2 lakhs imposed under Rule 173 Q of the Rules has been set aside. In this appeal preferred against the order of the CESTAT, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that he was not questioning the order on merit insofar as it holds that the 'other works overhead' should have been calculated in the cost which was to be calculated by the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ther works overhead' in arriving at the assessable value though it forms part of the costing element of 'conversion cost' shown in the costing report. The argument by the learned counsel for the appellant, however, was that there was no intentional omission/ suppression on its part inasmuch as the differential duty was paid on the basis of average cost of raw material as intimated by P&G in their cost audit report and therefore, the appellant acted bona fide in relying upon the s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version