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 favors appellant in valuation dispute, rejects Revenue's formula. Exemption granted under Chapter 84.</h1> <h3>M/s Uflex Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs And Service Tax, Noida</h3> M/s Uflex Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs And Service Tax, Noida - 2016 (335) E.L.T. 376 (Tri. - All.) Issues:1. Valuation of captively consumed 'hard copy shim' for Central Excise duty.2. Eligibility of the appellant for exemption under Notification No.67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 for captively consumed hard copy shim as capital goods.Valuation of Captively Consumed 'Hard Copy Shim' for Central Excise Duty:The appellant, engaged in manufacturing polyester film, shim, BOPP, and plastics, faced demands for differential duty on captively consumed 'hard copy shim' used in exempted hologram production. The Revenue challenged the valuation under Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, arguing that the technical expertise in the product was not adequately considered under CAS-4. The Revenue proposed a formula to determine the value of the shim. The original authority confirmed the demands and penalties, leading to the appeal. The appellant contended that the valuation was as per CAS-4 standards and Rule 8, with no extra costs alleged by Revenue. The Tribunal found the Revenue's methodology arbitrary, rejecting the deductive method used and emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting additional costs. The Tribunal cited the Cadbury India Ltd. case and upheld the appellant's valuation method under Rule 8 and CAS-4 standards.Eligibility for Exemption under Notification No.67/95-CE:Regarding the exemption under Notification No.67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 for captively consumed hard copy shim as capital goods, the Tribunal found the impugned goods fell under Chapter 84 and qualified as capital goods. The original authority's denial of exemption was deemed misconceived, with Rule 6 (4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, found inapplicable. The appellant's claim for exemption under the notification was supported by the Tribunal, citing precedents like Hero Cycles Ltd. and Siemens Ltd. The Tribunal emphasized interpreting the notification based on its language and plain terms. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on both valuation and exemption grounds, allowing the appeals and disposing of the Miscellaneous Applications.---
TaxTMI 