TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The key legal issues and holdings in this case are: 1. Valuation of clinkers transferred by the appellant to their sister concern should be done u/r 4 read with Rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, rather than Rule 8. This follows the Larger Bench judgment in Ispat Industries case and the Tribunal's own decision in Ultratech Cement Ltd. case. 2. The principle of revenue neutrality cannot be considered as an incentive to not follow the statutory valuation rules, solely on the ground that the other unit could avail credit of differential duty payable. Revenue neutrality is not a statutory concept but an equitable principle developed by courts as a mitigating factor in determining intention behind non-payment of duty. 3. The extended period of limitation cannot be applied in cases involving interpretation of statutory valuation principles, in the absence of suppression or misrepresentation of facts by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the demand for the extended period. 4. The appeals are remanded to the adjudicating authority to redetermine the assessable value applying Rule 4 read with Rule 11, compute differential duty with interest for the normal period, and set aside the penalty, as the issue pertains to interpretation of valuation rules.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
