Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post a Query
Post a New Query
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Discussion Forum

Back

All Issues

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
OR
Search by Issue ID:
NOTE: If you have inputs in both the fields, then results will be shown for issueId first.
Issue ID :

Payment of duty - Dies manufacture

Rajkumar Chandnani

We are mfg platic components. We get dies and moulds made from outside on laboue jobwork thru various local tool rooms by supplying metal req for dies. we have taken modvat cr on metal supplied to them in two years @ 50% each year. We have used these dies in production for 2/3 years and there after sold during current year by paying current tariff 8% duty. Department is asking to pay duty @ 16% ,applicable rate , when we got the dies manufactured manufactured. what is correct legal position.

Dispute Over Duty Rate on Sold Dies: Manufacturer Pays 8%, Department Demands 16% Citing CENVAT Rule 3(3) Proviso. A manufacturer of plastic components outsourced the creation of dies and molds, supplying metal for the job and claiming MODVAT credit over two years. After using the dies for 2-3 years, they sold them, paying an 8% duty. However, the department insists on a 16% duty, the rate when the dies were made. One respondent suggests referring to the seventh proviso of Rule 3(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, while another states that both the manufacturer's and the department's actions are incorrect, emphasizing adherence to Rule 3(3). (AI Summary)
answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Guest on Dec 1, 2009
Sir, Please refer seventh proviso of Rule 3(3)of CENVAT credit Rule,2004.
Rama Krishana on Dec 8, 2009
Your action as well as department action are not correct. The provision of rule 3(3) must be followed.
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Issues