TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- 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.
Issues: Whether, for stock transfer of cement to the assessee's RMC units, valuation had to be determined under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 or under Rule 4 of those Rules.
Analysis: For the period in dispute, Rule 8 as it stood prior to 01.12.2013 applied where excisable goods were not sold and were used for consumption in the manufacture of other articles. The substituted Rule 8, introduced by Notification No. 14/2013-C.E. (N.T.) dated 22.11.2013, expressly extended the valuation method to cases where only part of the goods were sold and the remainder were captively consumed. The substitution was treated as remedial and intended to remove the anomaly between valuation of goods sold to independent buyers and goods transferred for captive consumption. The Tribunal also relied on the statutory scheme of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the valuation rules, and the departmental circular clarifying that captive consumption remained assessable under Rule 8 even when part of the goods were sold.
Conclusion: Valuation of the stock-transferred cement was required to be done under Rule 8, not Rule 4, and the contrary view in the impugned order was unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: A substituted valuation rule enacted to cure an anomaly and regulate captive consumption applies to stock transfers even where part of the manufactured goods are sold to independent buyers, if the legislative intent and statutory scheme so require.
TaxTMI 
