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 →

Kriti Industries (India) Ltd. Versus C.C.E., Indore And Vice-Versa

2016 (3) TMI 849 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Valuation adopted by the assessee in respect of the exempted pipes cleared - the total value realized by the assessee should be considered for quantification of 8% and since this amount of 8% reversed in terms of Rule 6 (3) (b) is not a tax, no deduction is available while arriving at the value for the same - Held that:- The Original Authority found that the Cenvat Credit Rules talks about total price, the amount of 8% which is not an excise duty cannot be deducted from the total price considera .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

terms “other taxes” mentioned in Section 4 (4) (d) (ii) of Central Excise Act for exclusion from assessable value. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that taxes as such are not defined in the Central Excise Act. If the expression “tax” is to be understood in the absence of any definition, it would certainly cover any levy. It was held that any compulsory exaction made under an enactment is a duty or impost and such impost must be held to be in the nature of tax covered by the aforesaid provisio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er No.52258/2015 dated 10.07.2015. The Tribunal held that when the appellant assessee is paying 10% of the value of HDPE pipes used for manufacturing sprinkler system they are not required to pay 10% of value of the sprinkler system, relying on the earlier decision in the appellant/ assessees own case. Thus we find that the demand for an amount of 8% or 10% on the sprinkler system is not justified. - Excise Appeal No.E/2696/2006-EX [DB] & Excise Appeal No.E/3768/2006-EX [DB] - Final Order No. 5 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pellants/ assessees are engaged in the manufacture of plastic pipes and accessories etc. liable to Central Excise Duty. In December, 2004 certain investigations were carried out regarding possible non-payment of proper Central Excise Duty by the assessee. Consequently, proceedings were initiated to demand and recover Central Excise Duty on various grounds. Relevant to the present proceedings are two issues, namely, (a) inclusion of the amount of 8% of value of the exempted pipes paid in terms of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

no requirement to calculate and pay the said 8% amount on the value of sprinkler system. They relied on the decision of the Tribunal in their own case vide final order No.52258/2015 dated 10.07.2015. The Tribunal held relying on the earlier decisions on the same issue that payment of percentage amount of the value of the HDPE pipes used for manufacture of sprinkler system is sufficient compliance of the provisions of Rule 6 (3). 4. In the appeal filed by the Department it is contented that 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

id Rules are to be calculated. On the second issue regarding reversal of 8/10% on the value of captively consumed HDPE pipes instead of exempted sprinklers systems the Revenue contended that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is in error to hold the demand is substantially time barred. It is contended that the assessee had never informed the Department in any correspondence or in their monthly return regarding the fact of captive consumption of HDPE pipes in the manufacture of sprinkler system. But .....

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 final product, namely, sprinkler system. On the first issue, we find that the assessee while clearing the exempted pipes are also collecting 8% of the price as the amount reversed by them in terms of Rule 6 (3) (b) of Cenvat Credit Rules. The Departments case is that the amount so recovered also should be added while arriving at the gross value for such percentage. The Commissioner (Appeals) following his earlier decision held that the assessee need not add the amount separately collected .....

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 amount reversed by the assessee is in terms of the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules when they have not maintained separate accounts for inputs used for dutiable or exempted final products. The Original Authority found that the Cenvat Credit Rules talks about total price, the amount of 8% which is not an excise duty cannot be deducted from the total price consideration. We notice that the appellants were bound by provisions of Rule 6 (3) (b) to reverse an amount of 8%/10%, when they clear exe .....

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