Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, for exemption under the notification relating to footwear of a specified value, the expression "value" had to be determined under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 before deduction of duty, or whether it meant the actual value after duty had been levied and paid.
Analysis: Section 4 lays down the formula for determination of value for the purposes of duty. The exemption notification was issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which empowers exemption of excisable goods from the whole or any part of the duty leviable on them. The scheme of the Act and the Rules shows that the statutory concept of value for duty assessment is distinct from the value relevant for exemption. The exemption operates after levy, and the notification does not require the application of the Section 4 formula to determine eligibility for exemption.
Conclusion: The "value" in the exemption notification was to be taken as the real actual value after duty had been levied and calculated, not the deemed value under Section 4. The appeal failed and the assessee succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: The statutory concept of assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 applies only to valuation for duty assessment and does not govern valuation for exemption under a Rule 8 notification, where the relevant value is the actual value after levy of duty.