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>CESTAT Hyderabad: Appeal Allowed, CENVAT Credit Determines Correct Assessable Value</h1> <h3>M/s Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., (Unit-VI) Versus CCE, C & ST, Hyderabad-I</h3> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT HYDERABAD set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal relied on earlier ... CENVAT credit - It is the case of the Revenue that appellant have recomputed value of the inputs as per the provisions of Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and discharged appropriate duty - Held that: - the issue is no more res integra as is covered by the ratio of the Larger Bench decision in the case of SILVASA MACHINES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VAPI [2012 (11) TMI 772 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD], where it was held that amount of Cenvat credit taken by the assessee, of the duty paid on the invoice value as shown in the invoice can be considered as correct assessable value and duty liability to be discharged - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Interpretation of Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding valuation of cleared inputs/capital goods.2. Applicability of the decision in Eicher Tractors case and Silvasa Machines case to the present situation.Analysis:1. The appeal challenged Order-in-Original No.04/2012 (C.E.)- Commr. dated 30.04.2012, concerning the clearance of input/capital goods by the appellant from the factory premises during the period 01.07.2000 to 28.02.2003. The Revenue contended that the appellant should have recomputed the value of the inputs as per Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and discharged appropriate duty. The adjudicating authority initially dropped the demands raised on the appellant for a specific period.2. The appellant's counsel relied on the decision in the Eicher Tractors case and the Silvasa Machines case to support their argument. They argued that these cases set a precedent favoring the appellant's position. The Departmental Representative, however, opposed this stance, emphasizing that the clearance of inputs/capital goods should be treated as clearances of manufactured goods, necessitating valuation based on Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.3. The Tribunal, after reviewing the arguments and records, found that the issue was no longer res integra as it was covered by the decisions in the Eicher Tractors case and the Silvasa Machines case. The Tribunal referred to a Circular which provided guidelines for valuation of goods/inputs removed as such from the factory. The Circular indicated that the CENVAT credit taken by the assessee could be considered as the correct assessable value, and duty liability should be discharged accordingly.4. Based on the settled position established by the earlier decisions and Circular, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT HYDERABAD highlights the interpretation of Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the application of precedent cases to determine the valuation of cleared inputs/capital goods.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
