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: (i) Whether, for waste and scrap partly sold and partly captively consumed, duty for the period up to 30-11-2013 was payable under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 or on transaction value; (ii) Whether, for the period from 1-12-2013 onwards, the amended Rule 8 applied and the assessee was still entitled to exemption under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. and consequential relief from demand and penalty.
Issue (i): Whether, for waste and scrap partly sold and partly captively consumed, duty for the period up to 30-11-2013 was payable under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 or on transaction value.
Analysis: The prior controversy on valuation of captively consumed waste had already been settled against the revenue. For the period prior to the amendment effective from 1-12-2013, Rule 8 was held inapplicable where the goods were partly sold and partly captively consumed, and the assessee was not required to revalue the waste on cost construction basis for that period.
Conclusion: The demand for the period up to 30-11-2013 was not sustainable and was decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether, for the period from 1-12-2013 onwards, the amended Rule 8 applied and the assessee was still entitled to exemption under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. and consequential relief from demand and penalty.
Analysis: Although the amended Rule 8 required valuation on cost of production plus 10% for goods captively consumed, the duty paid was available as Cenvat credit, making the exercise revenue neutral. The assessee was also found entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 67/95-C.E. on the facts, and the penalty could not survive once the demand itself was not maintainable.
Conclusion: The demand for the period from 1-12-2013 onwards and the equivalent penalty were not sustainable and were decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Where captively consumed goods are partly sold and partly consumed, the applicable valuation method must follow the governing valuation rules as amended, but a demand cannot be sustained where the assessee is otherwise entitled to exemption and the overall exercise is revenue neutral.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
