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>Supreme Court: Include Interest Costs and Loss of Raw Materials in Cost of Production</h1> <h3>HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAJASTHAN</h3> HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAJASTHAN - 2011 (273) E.L.T. 405 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:- Dispute over assessable value of zinc and lead concentrates- Inclusion of interest cost and loss of raw materials in cost of production- Applicability of Circular dated 13-2-2003 for determining cost of production- Burden of proof on department regarding loss of raw materials- Sustainability of Commissioner (Appeals)'s order on interest cost and loss of raw materialsAnalysis:1. Dispute over Assessable Value:The appellant, engaged in zinc and lead manufacturing, faced a dispute regarding the assessable value of zinc and lead concentrates transferred to smelting units. The department alleged short payment of duty due to the exclusion of interest on loans and loss of materials from the cost of production.2. Inclusion of Interest Cost and Loss of Raw Materials:The appellant argued that interest on loans need not be included as per CAS-4 accounting standard and Board's Circular dated 13-2-2003. The department contended that Circular 13-2-2003 applied prospectively, but the Supreme Court held that CAS-4 principles must be adopted for determining production cost.3. Applicability of Circular 13-2-2003:The Board's Circular dated 13-2-2003 mandated determining cost of goods for captive use based on CAS-4. The Tribunal and Supreme Court emphasized following CAS-4 principles for cost determination, rejecting the department's argument on Circular's prospective application.4. Burden of Proof on Department:Regarding the loss of raw materials, the appellant clarified that it pertained to ore concentrates, not raw materials. The burden of proving otherwise rested on the department, which failed to provide evidence supporting their claim, leading to the unsustainability of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s finding.5. Sustainability of Commissioner (Appeals)'s Order:The Tribunal found the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order unsustainable due to incorrect inclusion of interest cost and loss of raw materials in the cost of production. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.In conclusion, the judgment clarified the principles governing the determination of assessable value, the inclusion of costs in production, and the burden of proof in disputes over cost components. The decision highlighted the significance of following accounting standards and circulars for accurate cost calculation, ultimately leading to the allowance of the appeal based on the appellant's arguments and the unsustainability of the previous orders.
TaxTMI 