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 emphasizes accurate deduction calculations for assessable values, sets aside disallowance decision.</h1> <h3>COOLADE BEVERAGES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., GHAZIABAD</h3> The Tribunal set aside the disallowance of deductions for 'rent on containers' and 'freight' from the sale price of aerated water. It emphasized the need ... Valuation (Central Excise) - Transport charges - Provisional assessment Issues:1. Disallowance of deductions in respect of 'rent on containers' (ROC) and 'freight' from the sale price to arrive at the assessable value of aerated water.2. Challenge against the implementation order disallowing deductions on account of ROC and freight as well as finalization of assessment in respect of 'Canister'.Analysis:Issue 1: Disallowance of deductions in respect of ROC and freightThe appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal disallowing deductions for ROC and freight from the sale price of aerated water. The Commissioner (Appeals) disallowed the deductions and set aside the implementation order of the Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner's decision on the admissibility of ROC was in principle, allowing the claim only based on actual costs. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision where it was held that deductions should be permitted based on actuals. Therefore, the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) on ROC were set aside. Regarding transportation expenditure, the Tribunal found that the actual expenditure was higher than the claimed amount, leading to no case for additional deductions.Issue 2: Challenge against the implementation orderThe Tribunal observed that the Revenue's challenge against the Commissioner's order-in-original was dismissed in a previous case. The grounds pleaded in the challenge against the implementation order were similar to the grounds in the dismissed appeal. The Tribunal held that the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) on ROC, contrary to the previous decision, had to be set aside. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the order-in-appeal did not provide reasons for disallowing the findings on 'Canister,' leading to the vacating of this decision.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of determining deductions based on actual costs and ensuring compliance with legal principles in assessing the assessable value of products.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
