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 the approved Part II price list could be ignored and duty levied on the Part I price when the goods were removed without certainty as to the class of buyer or end destination.
Analysis: Duty under the excise valuation scheme is to be determined at the point of removal of the goods. Where, at that stage, the assessee cannot identify the purchaser or the eventual class of buyer, the proper basis is the normal price at the factory gate and not a special or contract-linked price applicable to a particular customer. The approval of a Part II price list does not, by itself, control valuation if the goods are cleared without the necessary factual foundation for that price to apply. The principle applied was that valuation must reflect the price payable by an ordinary customer at the time of removal.
Conclusion: The differential duty based on the Part I price was rightly sustained and the assessee was not entitled to retain the benefit of the Part II price list for these clearances.
Final Conclusion: The revenue's valuation basis was upheld, the assessee's challenge to the duty demand failed, and the penalty was sustained along with the demand.
Ratio Decidendi: For excise valuation, the relevant price is the normal price prevailing at the time of removal, and a special or approved contract price cannot be applied where the buyer or destination is not known at the time of clearance.