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
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1993 (1) TMI 166

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 on the ground that the appellants are liable to pay differential duty on ferro manganese slag weighing 5843.453 MT captively consumed by them during the period 27-10-1986 to 31-1-1987 on the basis of Rs. 200/- PMT and not @ Rs. 150/- PMT adopted earlier. The impugned order was served on the appellant on 25-3-1991 against which this appeal has been filed on 6-6-1991. 2. (i) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various ferro alloys and slag falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants sell ferro manganese slag in bulk @Rs. 150/- PMT and accordingly filed price lists in Part I. The appellants also sold the same pro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the company who reiterated the grounds as mentioned in the appeal petition. They have also sent written arguments which have been taken on record. 4. I have given my careful consideration to all the submissions made in the appeal petition and those averred at the time of personal hearing, including the written brief sent in later. I have also perused the impugned order. The short question to be decided in this appeal is whether the assessable value for captive consumption should be @ Rs. 150/- PMT as claimed by the appellant or @ Rs. 200/- PMT as decided by the Assistant Collector. 5. The appellants have challenged the impugned order on the following main points : (i) in Price List Part I the assessable value was approved @ Rs.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rs. 150/- PMT. Thus, at the relevant time, the wholesale price of Rs. 150/- PMT was available. This should form the basis for valuation of the goods used for captive consumption, in the light of the case laws cited above. 7. As per the provisions of Section 4 different contracted prices were acceptable in respect to the same goods. If the contract prices are genuine and bonafide they are generally to be accepted even if they are lower than the prices charged from other buyers. But the approved contract prices will be confined only to the quantity shown in the price lists in Part II with respect to that particular customer for which such price was got approved. 8. Since the wholesale price at the factory gate is available (under Part I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....also industrial users formed a substantial percentage of the total sales (both in Part I & Part II) the price of Rs. 150/- PMT is more appropriate. This view is supported by the cited case law in National Rayon Ltd. - 1984 (15) E.L.T. 201 (T) cited above. The contention of the appellant that the additional/extra expenses were actually incurred by them for supplying to Hariganga at the rate of Rs. 200/- PMT whereas no such expenses/activities were necessary in regard to the captively consumed material has also merit and should have been considered by the Assistant Collector. In this connection, attention is invited to the observation of the Collector (Appeals) in Para 6 on page 5 of the order dated 31-10-1990 to the effect that "the Assistan....