TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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: (i) Whether Modvat credit obtained on inputs can by itself reduce the assessable value of excisable goods; (ii) Whether a revised contract price could be accepted as the assessable value without examining the original contract and the manner in which the price was altered.
Issue (i): Whether Modvat credit obtained on inputs can by itself reduce the assessable value of excisable goods.
Analysis: Section 4 governs valuation on the basis of the normal price, and the assessable value must be computed under that provision alone. The Modvat scheme under Rules 57A, 57G and 57N permits credit of duty paid on inputs to be utilised towards payment of duty on final products, but it does not operate to lower the assessable value automatically. Any benefit from input credit may reduce the manufacturer's duty burden, but it does not alter the statutory basis of valuation. A reduction in price, if genuinely made, can be relevant only through the procedure prescribed for price-list approval.
Conclusion: Modvat credit does not by itself reduce the assessable value, and the issue is decided against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether a revised contract price could be accepted as the assessable value without examining the original contract and the manner in which the price was altered.
Analysis: Under Rule 173C, a fresh or amended price-list lowering the existing value requires prior approval, and any revision ordinarily operates prospectively. Since the original contracts and their terms were not placed for examination, the nature of the alleged price revision, including whether it could be altered by letter or with retrospective effect, could not be conclusively determined. The matter therefore required factual re-examination by the proper officer before the revised price could be accepted for assessment.
Conclusion: The revised contract price could not be accepted on the existing record, and remand was necessary.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the order under challenge was set aside, and the matter was sent back for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: Input credit under the Modvat scheme affects payment of duty on final products, but it does not, without compliance with the valuation and price-list procedure, reduce the assessable value determined under Section 4.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
