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>Appeal allowed, case remanded for new decision on assessable value of resin-coated sand.</h1> <h3>PARANJAPE AUTOCAST PVT. LTD. Versus ASSTT. COLLECTOR OF C. EX. & CUS.</h3> PARANJAPE AUTOCAST PVT. LTD. Versus ASSTT. COLLECTOR OF C. EX. & CUS. - 1993 (68) E.L.T. 507 (Coll. Appl.) Issues:- Appeal against order raising assessable value- Determination of assessable value based on comparable goods- Consideration of prices of comparable goods- Remand of case for further considerationAnalysis:The appeal was filed by M/s. Paranjape Autocast Pvt. Ltd. against an order raising the assessable value claimed by them for resin coated sand used in manufacturing cast iron castings. The appellants claimed an assessable value of Rs. 2.70 per kg, based on cost of manufacture plus a 10% profit margin. However, the Assistant Collector raised concerns based on the price of similar resin coated sand sold by another unit at Rs. 4.50 per kg. The Assistant Collector approved an assessable value of Rs. 3.58 per kg, determined through best judgment.During the appeal hearing, the appellants argued that the Assistant Collector should have accepted their declared manufacturing cost of Rs. 2.70 per kg, as certified by the Cost Accountant, instead of relying on the cost of M/s. Mutha Founders Pvt. Ltd. They contended that the assessable value for goods captively consumed should include a 10% profit margin, citing relevant case law. Additionally, they presented prices of resin coated sand from other suppliers at rates lower than Rs. 3.58 per kg.The Commissioner noted that under Rule 6(b), the value should be determined based on comparable goods' selling prices. While M/s. Mutha Founders' price of Rs. 4.50 per kg was considered, prices from other suppliers like M/s. Shell-sand Pvt. Ltd. were not addressed by the Assistant Collector. The Commissioner remanded the case back to the Assistant Collector to explain why the prices of M/s. Shell-sand were disregarded, emphasizing the need to consider all relevant pricing information for comparable goods.In conclusion, the appeal was allowed for a remand back to the Assistant Collector for a fresh decision in line with the directions provided. The Assistant Collector was instructed to consider all relevant pricing information, including that of M/s. Shell-sand, and to provide a reasoned order based on the quality and composition of the resin coated sand from different suppliers.
TaxTMI 