Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the value of molasses cleared and sold by the manufacturer was to be determined under Section 4(1)(a) on the basis of the actual sale price, or whether recourse could be taken to cost-based valuation under Rule 6(b)(ii).
Analysis: The goods were admittedly sold to buyers at the prices realised in tender sales, and there was no allegation that the declared price was false, suppressed, or supplemented by any additional consideration. Where goods are sold, valuation must first be made under the statutory sale-price basis; resort to the cost-based rule is permissible only when that course is unavailable. The attempted reliance on the opinion of the Chief Sugar Technologist was also rejected, because molasses is an incidental by-product of sugar manufacture and its cost of manufacture cannot be sensibly derived by apportioning the cost of sugar production in the manner suggested.
Conclusion: The sale price was the proper basis for valuation, and Rule 6(b)(ii) could not be invoked. The appeal failed.
Final Conclusion: The assessment based on an estimated cost of manufacture was set aside, and the valuation adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Where excisable goods are actually sold and the declared price is not shown to be false or supplemented by additional consideration, valuation must be made on the sale price basis, and cost-based valuation cannot be applied merely on an about manufacturing cost.