Just a moment...
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%
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 torn cartons sold as waste were to be treated as removal of inputs as such under Rule 57F(1), or as waste arising from processing of inputs under Rule 57F(4), and whether duty/value had to be linked to the original purchase price of the cartons.
Analysis: Rule 57F(1) applies where goods are removed from the factory in the same condition in which they were received, in which event duty cannot be less than the credit taken. Rule 57F(4) applies to waste arising from processing of inputs and requires duty on such waste. The cartons cleared were torn waste cartons, not inputs removed as such, so Rule 57F(1) did not apply. Once the goods were accepted as waste, valuing them at the original purchase price of good cartons was unsustainable, particularly when the contracted sale price of the waste was not disputed.
Conclusion: The demand based on Rule 57F(1) was incorrect and the valuation adopted by the lower authorities could not stand. The appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.