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

2016 (3) TMI 849 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (3) TMI 849 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - 2016 (344) E.L.T. 549 (Tri. - Del.) - 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% 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

Mills (2001 (8) TMI 119 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.) examined the scope of the 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sees own case the matter was decided in their favour earlier vide Final Order 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/ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ken up together for disposal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants/ 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) i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ulfillment of provisions of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. There is 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 Ru .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ived by the assessee and accordingly, the amount to be reversed under the said 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 ca .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rrectness of payment of 8/10% on the captively consumed HDPE pipes rather on 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 d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion is available while arriving at the value for the same. 7. We find that the 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 prov .....

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