TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- 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.
Issues: Whether, for valuation of an intermediate excisable product cleared to sister units and captively consumed, the cost of production under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 could include the disputed elements of cost, and whether the Tribunal was right in deleting the demand on that basis.
Analysis: The dispute concerned valuation of Linear Alkyl Benzene manufactured by the assessee and used both captively and in transfers to sister units. The parties accepted that valuation had to be made on the cost method under Rule 8. The Tribunal had applied Cost Accounting Standard 4, adopted by the Department, and held that the disputed items of cost could not be included in the cost of production. The Supreme Court found no error in that approach and agreed with the Tribunal's reasoning on the valuation exercise.
Conclusion: The disputed elements of cost were not includible in the cost of production for valuation under Rule 8, and the Tribunal's view was upheld in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The departmental appeal failed, and the Tribunal's relief to the assessee stood affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi: For valuation under Rule 8, cost of production must be determined in accordance with the applicable cost accounting standard, and cost elements not properly includible under that method cannot be added for excise duty valuation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
