GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (5) TMI 627 - SUPREME COURT

2015 (5) TMI 627 - SUPREME COURT - 2015 (320) E.L.T. 690 (SC) - Valuation - Captive consumption - price shown for various models of VIT cleared for captive consumption of the appellant's own unit at Nasik is much lesser than the price at which the appellant had been selling such products to the other parties - Held that:- In the chart the quantity which was cleared by the appellant for its Nasik unit for the year 1997 is shown in tabulated form in respect of second and fourth model. Insofar as 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

co Lawrie and the price charged from the said party is ₹ 12,500/- during 1997-1998, 1998-1999, 1999-2000 and ₹ 11,400/- for the year 2000-2001. This is almost comparable price at which the goods were cleared for its Nasik unit. Therefore, in respect of this model the goods which were cleared by the appellant for its Nasik unit should have been accepted and the price could not have been fixed at ₹ 22,650/-. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Civil Appeal No. 7853 of 2004 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he appellant at its Aurangabad unit. These are sold to the third parties in the open market and also cleared by the appellant as well for its own unit at Nasik for captive consumption. The appellant has been paying central excise duty for the goods cleared for its Nasik unit. The Revenue/Department found that the price shown for various models of VIT cleared for captive consumption of the appellant's own unit at Nasik is much lesser than the price at which the appellant had been selling such .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pleaded that the price declared for clearance of such goods for Nasik unit should be accepted. The Assessing Officer rejected the aforesaid plea of the appellant and confirmed the demand raised in the show cause notice. The rejection was on the ground that Nasik unit was to be treated as "related party", such price as declared cannot be taken into consideration in view of the provision of Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. For the purpose of valuation the adjudicating aut .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

b)(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, was adopted. The order of the adjudicating authority was challenged by the appellant by filing appeal before the Tribunal. Here also the main contention of the appellant was that the goods which were cleared by the Aurangabad unit for its Nasik unit were at negotiated price and that a price should have been taken into consideration even if the goods were to the related parties. We find that this aspect has been dealt with in detail by the Tribunal an .....

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