9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of milk crumbs, refined milk chocolate and four other products manufactured by the respondent - M/s. Cadbury India Limited, in its factory at Jnduri, Pune and captively consumed in that factory and other factories of the respondent in the manufacture of chocolate. No part of these products are sold by the respondent. 4. The respondent had sought valuation of these goods under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, which provides for basing the valuation on such goods on the "cost of production on manufacture including profits, if any, the assessee would have earned in the sale of such goods." 5. The assessee had showed the price of these goods supported by a statement verified by a chartered accountant. The statement in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal held that sub-rule (ii) of Rule 6(b) can be invoked only in a situation where the goods are not sold and there are no comparable goods. The Tribunal held that the expenses other than the cost of manufacture, cost of raw materials and the profit would not be includible in the assessable value. 9. The issue in the present case is about the value of the goods captively consumed by the respondent. The assessee has contended that there is no dispute that these intermediate goods are not marketable and are not bought and sold in the market. Hence the valuation of these intermediate goods has to be done according to Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975. Rule 6(b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on and development rebate under the Income Tax Act. "Written- down value" depended upon the "actual cost" of the assets to the assessee. The expression "actual cost" had not been defined in the Income Tax Act, 1922 and the question was whether the interest paid before the commencement of production on the amount borrowed for the acquisition and installation of the plant and machinery could be considered to be a part of the "actual cost" of the assets to the assessee. As the expression "actual cost" had not been defined, this Court was of the view that it should be construed "in the sense which no commercial man would misunderstand. For this purpose, it could be necessary to ascertain the connotation of the above expression in accordance wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the department to apply CAS-4 for the determination of the cost of production of the captively consumed goods. In ITC v. CCE - 2005 (190) E.L.T, 119 the Tribunal held that the department has to calculate the cost of production in terms of CAS-4. Other decisions of the Tribunal, wherein it has directed that CAS-4 be applied for determination of the cost of production, are Teja Engineering v. CCE - 2006 (193) E.L 100 (Tri- Chennai), Ashima Denims v. CCE - 2005 (191) E.L.T. 318 (Tri-Mumbai) and Arti Industries v. CCE - 2005 (186) E.L.T. 208 (Tri-Chennai). This is therefore consistent view taken by the Tribunal. The department has not filed any r in these cases and accepted the legal position. Apart from this, in the light of several decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
