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>Appeal success: Excise duty on in-house samples rejected</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Central Excise Versus Central Cables Ltd.</h3> Commissioner of Central Excise Versus Central Cables Ltd. - 2016 (343) E.L.T. 924 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Appeal against order-in-appeal confirming duty liability on samples drawn for testing within factory premises.2. Interpretation of Circulars issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs regarding samples drawn for testing.3. Adherence to quality standards in manufacturing process and duty liability on samples drawn for testing.4. Comparison of treatment of samples retained in factory for testing and those taken outside for testing.5. Application of previous judgments on duty liability for samples drawn and tested within factory premises.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed by the revenue against an order-in-appeal confirming duty liability on samples drawn for testing within the factory premises. The first appellate authority set aside the demands based on the contention that the tests were necessary as a prerequisite for the manufacturing process completion. The authority relied on a Tribunal decision and acknowledged that samples drawn for testing within the factory were not liable for duty.2. The Circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs were crucial in determining the duty liability on samples drawn for testing. The Circulars detailed the procedure for drawal and accounting of samples for various purposes, including testing. The Circulars differentiated between samples drawn for in-house testing and those sent outside the factory premises for testing.3. The manufacturing process's adherence to quality standards necessitated drawing samples for testing, both within and outside the factory premises. The Tribunal highlighted that samples retained in the factory for testing purposes should not be subject to excise duty as they are not removed from the factory. The cost of such samples is absorbed in the production cost of finished goods ultimately charged with duty.4. The judgment emphasized the distinction between samples retained in the factory for testing and those taken outside for testing. Samples retained and tested within the factory premises should not attract excise duty as they are reintroduced in the production process. The judgment cited previous cases where samples drawn for testing and consumed during testing were not considered excisable goods liable for duty.5. Previous judgments, including decisions by the Tribunal and High Court, were cited to support the view that duty liability on samples drawn and tested within the factory premises should not apply. The instructions prescribing duty payment only upon removal from the factory and the treatment of samples in finished stock were crucial in rejecting the appeal and upholding the orders setting aside the duty demands.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the legal interpretation of duty liability on samples drawn for testing within factory premises, emphasizing the importance of quality standards in the manufacturing process and the application of previous legal precedents in determining excise duty obligations.
TaxTMI 