1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Tribunal rules on assessable value, penalties, and duties for collapsible tubes</h1> The Tribunal set aside the demand related to the inclusion of caps in the assessable value of collapsible tubes, citing them as accessories rather than ... Valuation (Central Excise) - Demand and Penalty - Shortage of inputs Issues:1. Inclusion of value of caps in the assessable value of collapsible tubes.2. Confiscation of seized goods and imposition of penalties.3. Shortage of inputs and duty payment.Analysis:1. Inclusion of value of caps in the assessable value of collapsible tubes:The Tribunal considered the demand arising from the inclusion of the value of caps in the value of collapsible tubes. Citing precedents like Essel Packaging Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai and A.Z Metal Industries Ltd. v. Collector, it was held that caps fitted on collapsible tubes are not integral parts but accessories. Consequently, the demand of Rs. 17,39,385/- along with penalties was set aside.2. Confiscation of seized goods and imposition of penalties:The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of seized goods due to the appellants' failure to account for them satisfactorily. The argument that the goods were yet to be entered in the records was rejected, and the redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 50,000/- while the penalty for non-accountal was reduced to Rs. 30,000/-. Additionally, a penalty of Rs. 90,000/- imposed was reduced to Rs. 30,000/-.3. Shortage of inputs and duty payment:Regarding the demand of Rs. 15,752/- due to input shortage, the appellants failed to provide evidence that the inputs found short were used for manufacturing goods. Consequently, the Commissioner's decision to sustain the demand for duty payment on the shortage was upheld. However, the penalty for this shortage was reduced to Rs. 5,000/-.In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed with the demand related to the inclusion of caps in the assessable value being set aside, while the confiscation of seized goods and penalties were upheld with some modifications. The demand related to input shortage and duty payment was also sustained with a reduced penalty.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
