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 allows appeal, grants exemption under Notification No. 176/77-C.E. on assessable value adjustments.</h1> <h3>DAYA RAM METAL WORKS PVT. LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BARODA</h3> The appeal was allowed by the Tribunal. The appellants were granted exemption under Notification No. 176/77-C.E. as their clearances were within the ... - Issues Involved:1. Exemption under Notification No. 176/77-C.E.2. Inclusion of Specific Charges in Assessable Value3. Time Limitation for Issuance of Show Cause Notice4. Rate of Duty ApplicableSummary:1. Exemption under Notification No. 176/77-C.E.:The appellants claimed exemption u/s Notification No. 176/77-C.E., asserting that their clearances were within the stipulated limits. However, the authorities alleged that the value of clearances exceeded the permissible limits, leading to a demand for excise duty.2. Inclusion of Specific Charges in Assessable Value:The appellants argued that certain charges should be excluded from the assessable value, including:- Supervision and Erection Charges: Rs. 76,000.00- Packing Charges: Rs. 38,755.00- Conversion Charges: Rs. 40,500.00The Tribunal held:- Bought Out Items: These were necessary for completing the equipment and should be included in the assessable value.- Supervision and Erection Charges: These were post-manufacturing expenses and should be excluded.- Conversion Charges: These should be included as they contribute to the manufacturing cost.3. Time Limitation for Issuance of Show Cause Notice:The appellants contended that the show cause notice was barred by time as it was issued beyond six months. The Tribunal found that the appellants had not disclosed all necessary particulars, which constituted suppression of information, thereby justifying the extended period of five years u/s 11A of the Act.4. Rate of Duty Applicable:The Tribunal found an error in the Collector's approach regarding the rate of duty. The correct rate should be as per Rule 9A(1)(ii) of the Rules, not Rule 9A(5).Conclusion:The appeal was allowed with the Tribunal holding that:- The value of bought out items and conversion charges should be included in the assessable value.- The value of packing charges and supervision and erection charges should be excluded.- The appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 176/77-C.E. as their clearances were within the permissible limits after the necessary adjustments.- The rate of duty, if applicable, should be as per Rule 9A(1)(ii).
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
