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 →

M/s Uflex Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs And Service Tax, Noida

2016 (3) TMI 344 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

Intermediate goods - captive consumption - Valuation adopted in terms of Rules and CAS-4 standards - eligibility for exemption under Notification NO.67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 - capital goods - Held that:- Hard copy shim is an excisable product manufactured and fully put to captive use by the appellant. For arriving at the value for Central Excise purpose, the appellant followed provisions of Rule 8 and general principles of costings as per CAS-4 standards. This is also in terms of Board's Circul .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oes not permit such arbitrariness and imaginative valuation. - The impugned goods are admittedly "capital goods" falling under Chapter 84 of CETA. The provisions of exemption Notification NO.67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 is clearly applicable to the impugned goods as they are used captively within the factory of production. The exclusion provided in the proviso of the said notification shall apply only to inputs not capital goods. We find the reasoning given by the original authority to deny 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

at the ld.Commissioner's finding is absolutely without basis and is erroneous. - This we hold that the appellant will succeed on both the grounds viz.: valuation adopted in terms of Rules and CAS-4 standards and eligibility for exemption under Notification NO.67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995. - Decided in favour of assessee - MA (EH)-51530 And 70090/2015 And Ex Appeal Nos. 50263/15 And 55882/2014 - Final Order Nos. A/70122-70123/2015 and Misc. Order Nos. MO/70054-70055/2015 - Dated:- 16-12-2015 - .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

goods arid input services. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant for demanding differential duty on captively consumed "hard copy shim" used in the manufacture of exempted final product hologram. Revenue felt that the valuation of the said shim was not proper under Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The main thrust of allegation by Revenue is that shim manufactured and consumed captively by the appellant are not properly valued because the technical expertise w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

xcise Valuation Rules, 2000. The Revenue evolved a formula as: Value of shim = value of holograms (-) value of stamping foil and release paper. The manufacturing, selling and other related expenses attributable to the sale value of holograms and depreciation of fixed assets were allowed as deductions. 2. The show-cause cum demands were adjudicated by the original authority confirming the demands and imposing equal penalties. Aggrieved by these orders, the appellant is before us. 3. The ld.Counse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1205 mm x 305 mm and is more than twice in thickness and 16 times in area. They never sold hard copy shim during relevant period; (b) Hard copy shim is classifiable under CTH 84425010. These are manufactured and captively consumed in the manufacture of exempted holograms. Rule 8 of Valuation Rules is clearly attracted in such situation. The costing has been done as per CAS-4 standards. The mind/expertise/technology have all been duly factored in by the appellants in their books of accounts. No e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ot; manufactured by them for captive use. The proviso to the said Notification is applicable only to "inputs" as a bar for exemption in the case of use for exempted final products. The ld.Counsel also submitted copies of various case laws in support of his above contentions. These are examined later in the discussion. 4. The ld.A.R., Shri M. K. Sarangi, reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the CAS-4 standard adopted by the appellant for arriving at 110% of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of captively consumed hard copy shim and (b) eligibility of the appellant for exemption under Notification No.67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 for captively consumed hard copy shim as capital goods. On the first point, we find that hard copy shim is an excisable product manufactured and fully put to captive use by the appellant. For arriving at the value for Central Excise purpose, the appellant followed provisions of Rule 8 and general principles of costings as per CAS-4 standards. This is also in ter .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Accountant whether the CAS-4 calculation by appellant is correct or not; (d) The additional cost of "mind/technology" is not to be presumed and imported as a concept outside the perimeters of Valuation Rules and costing standards; (e) There are no allegation or evidence that the manufacture of hard copy shim will involve additional cost not reflected in the books of accounts. Apart from the above, we find that the Revenue adopted highly arbitrary and imaginative methodology to arrive .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that Rule 8 would be unreliable in case the manufacturer is incurring huge losses. The ratio of this decision will not support the view that in present case because of huge profit, the CAS-4 standard should be discarded. It will result in a situation that the percentage of profit earned on final product will be added to the cost of intermediate product also. No legal sanction is available for such preposition. 6. We find that the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case .....

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