SIGN IN SUBSCRIBE

News Update

Requisite Checks for Appeals - RespondentInheritance Tax row - A golden opportunity to end 32-years long Policy Paralysis on DTCThe Heat is on: Preserving Earth's Climate in the Face of Global WarmingVAT - Timeline for frefund must be followed mandatorily while recovering dues under Delhi VAT Act: SCIndia, Australia to work closely for collaborative projectsCX - All the information was available to department in 2003 itself, therefore, SCN issued four years after gathering information is not sustainable and is highly barred by limitation: HCPowerful voices of amazing women leaders resonated at UN HqsCX - Clearance to sister concern for captive consumption - Department cannot compel assessee to perpetuate the illegality and in such circumstances the whole exercise was revenue neutral: HC75 International visitors from 23 countries arrive to watch world's largest elections unfoldCentre asks States to improve organ donation frequencyCus - Revenue involved in the appeal filed by Commissioner is far below the threshold monetary limit fixed by the CBEC, therefore, department cannot proceed with this appeal - Appeal stands disposed of: HCPM says NO to religion-based reservationCus - Export of non-basmati rice - Since the objective of Central Government in imposing ban with immediate effect was to avert a food crisis in the country, a strict compliance of exemption conditions would further the said intent of the Notification(s): HCAdani Port to develop port in PhilippinesCX - Appellant should not be left without an opportunity to put-forth his case on merits, particularly, when matter was decided during period of Covid-19 pandemic and also appellant contends that no opportunity of virtual hearing was granted by adjudicating authority: HCKiller floods - 228 killed in Kenya + 78 in BrazilI-T - Grant of registration u/s 12A can't be denied by invoking Sec 13(1)(b), as provisions of section 13 would be attracted only at time of assessment and not at time of grant of registration: ITATFlight cancellation case: Qantas accepts USD 66 mn penaltyI-T- Joint ownership in two residential properties at the time of sale of the original asset does not disentitle the assessee to claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act: ITATIsrael shuts down Al Jazeera; seizes broadcast equipmentI-T - If assessee was prevented from production of evidences because of its non-availability or delay in its retrieval coupled with ongoing several reassessment, assessee should be allowed to adduce additional evidence: ITATIndia to wait for Canadian Police inputs on arrest of men accused of killing Sikh separatist: JaishankarI-T- If assessee is otherwise found eligible, CIT(E) should grant provisional approval to assessee under Clause (iii) to First Proviso to section 80G(5): ITATLabour Party candidate Sadiq Khan wins record third term as London MayorI-T - Donation made to trust which is otherwise not approved during relevant period as per CBDT Circular, is not eligible for deduction u/s 35(1): ITATGovt scraps ban on export of onionI-T- Assessee could have filed application in Form No.10AB on or before 30.09.2022, which assessee failed to do : ITATUS Nurse convicted of killing 17 patients - 700 yrs of jail-term awardedI-T- AO erred in making addition for completed/non abated assessment as no incriminating material found during course of search :ITAT
 
CX - Appellant pays duty on clearances made to own unit by determining value based on AV of same products cleared to other buyers - no cause for employing Rule 8 of Valuation Rules - issue settled in Ispat case: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

AHMEDABAD, SEPT 12, 2014: DURING scrutiny of records it appeared to the CERA Audit that the appellants were transferring excisable goods to their own manufacturing unit on a value determined based on the factory gate sale of the same product to independent buyers.The CERA Audit was of the view that the appellant had to discharge duty liability on such transfers to their own units based on the valuation of goods under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 read with Board Circular dated 13.02.2003.

SCNs came to be issued invoking the extended period and they all met the same fate as is the norm. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands along with interest but spared the appellants of any penalty. This obviously made the Revenue unhappy and what happened was that both the appellant as well as the Revenue is before the CESTAT.

The appellant adverted to the Larger Bench decision in M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd.- 2007-TIOL-245-CESTAT-MUM-LB and submitted that in order to overcome the law which has been settled by the Larger Bench, Notification No.14/2013-C.E.(N.T.), dt. 22.11.2013 has been issued amending Rule 8 of Valuation Rules, 2000 to indicate that valuation of the goods consumed captively shall be based on the cost of production or manufacturing thereof & that the period involved in all these appeals are prior to 22.11.2013.

The AR supported the order of the adjudicating insofar as confirmation of demand and interest was concerned but submitted that penalties also ought to have been imposed as proposed in SCNs. The AR also placed reliance on the Madras High Court decision in Lakshmi Mills Co. Ltd. and where it is held that value of goods captively consumed has to be determined, when the price is not sole consideration for sale, in accordance with Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000.

The Bench inter-alia observed -

++ Undisputed facts are M/s. RIL has discharged central excise duty on the clearances made to their own unit by determining value based on the assessable value of the same products cleared to independent buyers. It is also undisputed that the clearances to independent buyers are accepted by the department as based on transaction value.

++ On the factual matrix as indicated hereinabove, we find that the revenue seeks to demand differential duty from M/s. RIL on the ground that they should have followed the provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. In our considered view, the adjudicating authority is in error in confirming the demands on this point as provision can be brought into play when the value of a particular product cannot be ascertained if only consumed captively. Our this view is fortified by the order of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd. (supra).

(See 2014-TIOL-1740-CESTAT-AHM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

TIOL Tube
Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.

TOP NEWS

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

VISION 360



Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.

TII LATEST

TIOLCORPLAWS LATEST