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 demands in sugar confectionery case, citing cost audit report.</h1> <h3>Soubhagya Confectionery (P) Ltd. Versus CCE, Hyderabad-I</h3> The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside duty demands and penalties confirmed by the Commissioner based on a Cost Audit report. The appellants, ... - Issues:1. Duty demand and penalty confirmation based on Cost Audit report.2. Allegations of willful mis-statement of values and suppression of assessable value.3. Adoption of higher prices for provisional assessments.4. Dispute regarding duty payment on actual cost of materials.5. Time limitation for invoking larger period for duty demands.6. Discrepancies in department's approach to assessing lower assessable value items.Analysis:1. The appeal stemmed from the confirmation of duty demand and penalties by the Commissioner based on a Cost Audit report. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing sugar confectionery on a job work basis, contested the allegations of willful mis-statement and suppression of assessable value.2. The appellants argued that they followed a cost plus conversion method for pricing, considering the fluctuating prices of raw materials like sugar and glucose. They maintained that the department's claim of suppression was unfounded, emphasizing the difficulty in determining actual costs due to price fluctuations.3. The Tribunal noted the appellants' consistent filing of price lists based on landed raw material costs and conversion charges. Additionally, a Certificate from the Cost Accountant was provided to ascertain assessable values. The Tribunal observed that Show Cause Notices issued previously covered the period in question, indicating the department's awareness of relevant facts.4. Rejecting the department's stance on invoking a larger period for duty demands, the Tribunal held the demands as time-barred. Citing precedents like Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. CCE Madras and ITW Signode India Ltd. vs. CCE, the Tribunal emphasized the need for a holistic assessment, considering all items used as inputs, rather than selectively targeting items with lower declared values.5. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, concluding that the demands were time-barred and setting them aside. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering all relevant factors in duty assessments and the limitations on invoking larger periods for duty demands.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
