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 chlorine in dry gaseous form, used captively in the manufacture of benzene hexachloride, was liable to duty at the tariff value applicable to liquid chlorine or at the tariff value applicable to gaseous chlorine.
Analysis: The notification in force fixed different tariff values for chlorine in liquid and gaseous forms, and such differential valuation was permissible under the statutory scheme. Liquid chlorine and gaseous chlorine were held to be the same goods in different states, not different products. When the chlorine was cleared through pipelines for captive use, it was in gaseous form, and the applicable tariff value had to be determined with reference to that form. The explanation to Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules reinforced this conclusion by deeming excisable goods used within the factory to have been removed immediately before such consumption or utilisation.
Conclusion: The gaseous chlorine used captively was assessable at the tariff value applicable to dry gaseous chlorine, not the value applicable to liquid chlorine.
Final Conclusion: The assessee's valuation claim succeeded and the contrary assessment was set aside, with consequential refund relief directed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory notification prescribes different tariff values for different forms of the same excisable commodity, duty must be assessed according to the form in which the goods stand at the point of deemed removal or captive consumption.