Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (9) TMI 1474

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ination of duty by the learned Commissioner, who shall re-determine the duty liability as per CAS-4 costing standards. Valuation - manufacture of ADV tyres and captively consumed - not entitled for exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CX dated 16.3.1995 - ADV tyres are cleared at Nil rate of duty under Notification No. 6/2000 dated 1.3.2000 - whether valuation had to be in accordance with Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 - duty paid under protest - Demand of differential duty and imposition of penalty - Held that:- the whole issue is interpretational and the matter can be considered in view of the similar earlier decisions of the Tribunal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Cadbury India .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ch goods. Accordingly, the differential duty was demanded for ₹ 43,45,022/- along with interest and penalty. Another show-cause notice dated 26.7.2001 was also issued stating therein that the appellant is manufacturing Rubberized Tyre Cord Warp Sheet, which is captively consumed in the manufacture of tyres. It further appeared that the said goods captively consumed in the manufacture of ADV tyre is not entitled for exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CX dated 16.3.1995, as amended, since ADB tyres are cleared at Nil rate of duty under Notification No. 6/2000 dated 1.3.2000. The quantity found to be consumed in manufacture of ADV tyre was 4.780 kgs. The total value of the said goods used in the month of July, 2000 to December, 2000 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellants have submitted, as on the date of show-cause notice, the final figures worked out was not available as the same would be available only on finalization of the account in month of October and accordingly, the whole issue is premature and the payment of duty should be treated as provisional, as the assessee is clearing them without finalizing the same. Further, the appellant referred to the provisons of CAS-4 which has been accepted by the Revenue to consider the issue accordingly. Further, in view of the fact that utilization of CENVAT Credit in case of excisable semi-finished goods, the condition is revenue neutral and the assessee has paid the amount demanded prior to show-cause notice, no penalty is imposable. However, vide the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellants are in appeal before this Tribunal. The main grievance of the appellant is that the learned Commissioner has erred in including selling cost, marketing cost, administrative expenses and advertisement expenses in the value adopted for cost of production. The appellant further points out from the Cost-sheet dated 25.11.2000 filed before the Revenue for the period 1.10.1998 to 30.9.1999, wherein the appellant has worked out the cost at ₹ 120.20 per kg., which also included the manufacturing expenses + marketing expenses and thereafter added profit margin @ 8.4% and contingency 4% which worked out to ₹ 135.11 per kg. According to the learned Counsel f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er of Central Excise - 2005 (191) ELT 318, the Hon'ble Supreme Court taking notice of the consistent view taken by the Tribunal and also found that the Revenue has not filed appeal in this matter and accepted the legal position and also found that the Revenue is bound by Circular No. 692/8/2003-CX dated 13.2.2003 issued by CBE C which have prescribed valuation under CAS-4. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the Revenue to re-determine the same and also observed that there can be no question of including the expenses of factory into the final product namely chocolate, the advertisement expenses and other expenses in the valuation is sought to be added by the Commissioner. Accordingly, taking support of the above cited ju .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates