TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal overturns duty demand due to inaccurate assessment of denatured alcohol value</h1> <h3>SHREE CHALTHAN VIBHAG UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD. Versus CCE, SURAT-I</h3> SHREE CHALTHAN VIBHAG UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD. Versus CCE, SURAT-I - 2003 (155) E.L.T. 518 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Assessment of specially denatured ethyl alcohol value.2. Determination of value of denaturant for duty calculation.Issue 1: The judgment concerns the assessment of the value of specially denatured ethyl alcohol by a sugar mill. The appellant denatures ethyl alcohol before clearance, producing specially denatured and ordinary denatured alcohol. The denatured alcohol is denatured by adding substances like acetone or benzene. The appellant included the quantity and volume of denaturant for assessment but deducted its value for the buyer's price. The notice alleged that the appellant did not include the denaturant's value in the assessable value, demanding duty on 10,615 liters of denaturant valued at Rs. 1.68 crore. The Commissioner confirmed the duty demand, leading to the appeal.Issue 2: The appellant argued that the notice and Commissioner's order lacked material to determine the denaturant's value. The appellant's counsel contended that the order was vague, referring to non-existent supplier bills. The appellant highlighted another order by the same Commissioner dropping proceedings against a similar manufacturer for the same reason. The departmental representative supported the Commissioner's findings but could not explain how the value was determined or why a different view was taken in a similar case.Analysis: The method used by the appellant did not accurately reflect the denatured alcohol's value assessment as it did not consider the denaturant's cost. The appellant assumed the value of alcohol and denaturant to be identical, which the appellant's counsel could not establish. The show cause notice lacked a basis or material for the denaturant's value, making it challenging to confirm the duty demand. The Commissioner's reference to supplier bills was deemed insufficient as it did not clarify the source or relevance of the bills. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order due to the absence of substantial material to support the duty demand.
TaxTMI 