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>Tribunal rules in favor of detergent manufacturer in Central Excise duty assessment case</h1> <h3>STANDARD SURFACTANTS LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., KANPUR</h3> STANDARD SURFACTANTS LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., KANPUR - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 763 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Valuation of floor sweepings for Central Excise duty assessment.2. Eligibility of Modvat credit on Ariel detergent cake.3. Denial of Modvat credit on inputs from unregistered dealers.Valuation of Floor Sweepings:The appellant, a manufacturer of detergent products, contested the duty demand on floor sweepings, arguing that they should not be valued as soap but based on their actual sale price. The Collector valued the sweepings as soap due to their usability, leading to the duty demand. However, the Tribunal found this valuation contrary to Central Excise law, stating that goods should be valued at their normal wholesale price. As the sweepings were sold at a lower price than soap, the duty demand on floor sweepings was deemed illegal and set aside.Eligibility of Modvat Credit on Ariel Detergent Cake:The duty demand on Ariel detergent cake was challenged by the appellant, who claimed Modvat credit for it. The order denied credit, stating that the cake was not an input. The appellant argued that since duty was paid on the composite pack containing the cake, credit should be allowed. The Tribunal disagreed with the order, emphasizing that the law allows credit for any item used in or related to manufacture. The finding denying credit on the cake was deemed illegal, and the duty demand on this item was set aside.Denial of Modvat Credit on Inputs from Unregistered Dealers:The denial of Modvat credit on inputs from unregistered dealers was contested by the appellant, who sought a remand to provide evidence of dealer registration. The order denied credit for inputs received during a specific period due to lack of dealer registration. The appellant referred to a circular allowing credit for inputs from dealers registered by a certain date. However, as the registration deadline had passed before the order and no evidence was presented, the Tribunal rejected the request for a remand. Consequently, the demand for Modvat credit on inputs from unregistered dealers was confirmed.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the duty demands on floor sweepings and Ariel detergent cake but confirmed the demand related to Modvat credit on inputs from unregistered dealers.
TaxTMI 