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 the exemption for footwear valued up to the prescribed limit could be claimed by first deducting an assumed excise duty element from the wholesale price so as to bring the goods within the exemption threshold.
Analysis: The valuation scheme under Section 4 treats the normal wholesale price at the time and place of removal as the value of the goods, and deduction under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) is permissible only where the price actually includes duty payable on the goods. Where footwear was priced above the exemption limit but no excise duty was in fact included in that price because goods up to the limit were wholly exempt, the manufacturer could not artificially deduct a notional duty element. The Explanation to Section 4(4)(d)(ii) requires the effective duty alone to be considered and full effect to be given to the exemption notification; it does not permit deduction of duty that is not payable. The Court also held that the construction urged would defeat the object of the notification and permit profit to be masked as duty.
Conclusion: The claim for exemption on the basis of deducting a notional excise duty element was rejected, and the assessment had to proceed on the wholesale price as the value.