1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Tribunal overturns duty demand on undervalued 'Oily Tape Waste' for captive consumption</h1> The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the duty demand on undervaluation of 'Oily Tape Waste' for captive consumption. The appellant successfully ... Valuation - Oily tape waste - Captive consumption - Discrimination - Precedent Issues: Duty demand on undervaluation of 'Oily Tape Waste' for captive consumption.Analysis:1. The appellant faced a duty demand of around Rs. 70,000 due to undervaluation of 'Oily Tape Waste' used for captive consumption. The appellant valued the goods at Rs. 4 per kg, while the revenue set a value of Rs. 8.62 per kg for duty calculation purposes.2. The appellant argued that the price of the waste varied based on its variety, highlighting that they sold superior varieties like 'Super White Tape Waste' at Rs. 10 per kg and 'Colour Tape Waste' at Rs. 8 per kg. They contended that the 'Oily Tape Waste' in question was of inferior quality, and it was erroneous for the revenue to use prices of superior waste to value the inferior material. The appellant also cited a previous adjudication order where the duty demand was dropped for similar facts, emphasizing that the revenue cannot adopt different positions in identical situations.3. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's argument, noting that the waste generated was of different grades and fetched varying prices. Therefore, it was unjust to value the inferior variety at the rate applicable to superior waste. The issue had been settled in a previous order by the Assistant Commissioner, reinforcing the inconsistency in the revenue's stance.4. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the challenged order and ruling in favor of the appellant. The decision was made after considering the arguments presented by the learned DR and examining the records. The judgment highlighted the importance of valuing goods accurately based on their specific characteristics and market prices to avoid unjust duty demands.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
